Fitzgerald: D'Souza has been weighed and found wanting

Turkey: Secular government put into power by force, keeping Islam at bay, and yet it's still in danger of being toppled because the Islamic clergy won't give up pushing for a theocracy. (Sounds like the cabbies who won't abide by U.S. law...)

India: 90% majority non-Muslim, and yet the country has still been the victim of 1,000 years of a murder and destruction at the hands of Muslims.

Indonesia: Non-Arabs. Arab Muslims are the heart of the problem, so Indonesia hasn't caught up to the curve from the Middle East when it comes to terror, but it certainly isn't guiltless.

Case-in-point on Indonesia: East Timor's independence from Indonesia was protected by Australian-lead forces, Sept. 20, 1999. So, tell me again that Muslims in Indonesia aren't killing infidels, D'Souza.

Give me a break.

PS

East Timor stats:

90% Roman Catholic ("infidels")
4% Muslim

Hugh-

I'm not so sure Dinesh D'Souza has not really believe his view correct and maybe he's not quite as smart as he or others have thought. His ego may be wounded as he is shown to not know what he's talking about.

I've seen this before with people. Someone is proved wrong and instead of admitting that they are wrong, they resent the person who demonstrates by facts that the truth is otherwise than they thought. It's a false pride, not one based in strength, that causes people to react that way. Arrogance then covers the person's insecurity.

This can easily escalate into a blind hate. The person hated is not really hated, what is hated is that the hating person is wrong. It's an ugly aspect of human nature. False pride is a big problem between/among people.

Who is Dinesh D'Souza? Is he a muslim?

"Someone is proved wrong and instead of admitting that they are wrong, they resent the person who demonstrates by facts that the truth is otherwise than they thought....This can easily escalate into a blind hate. The person hated is not really hated, what is hated is that the hating person is wrong."
-- from a posting above

You bet.

when you see the drastic reduction of Non Muslim religions in MUslim controlled areas...the spectre of ethnic cleansing should smack you right between the eyes....and should drive to inform everyone you meet and should drive you to become more proactive and knowledgeable...

...I am not the smartest cookie on the block, but I am becoming more learned about the Islamic plan for world domination...

We can start by Banning Muslim Imigration NOw...do not let the Islamic army in your neighborhood gain strength....Islam is not a Peaceful Religion no matter what anyone says...

"D'Souza has been weighed and found ..." to have the weight of a medium sized moonbat (posing as a "conservative" who has not been bought by whahabbi lobby).

Just a brief note, Hugh.

I think Turkey exhibits extreme problems with a number of minority ethnic groups (whether or not they're Muslim). The Kurds are Muslims and have been persecuted. The Alevis are Muslims (make up one-fifth of Turkey's population) and have faced extreme forms of persecution (that's because they're Shiite). (There was a report about the treatment of the Alevis on CBC radio -- a few years back -- i'd have to look it up -- but it was horrible -- they were being wiped out).

Also, there's a 2004 EU report -- available on the Internet, entitled: "Minorities in Turkey
Submission to the European Union and the Government of Turkey" By Nurcan Kaya and Clive Baldwin; Minority Rights Group International
July 2004. Thus, one reads about "Internal Displacement" - "Village destruction in Kurdish and Syriac villages and the ban on returns" --
"According to the report issued by the Turkish Grand National Assembly Research Commission
on the Evacuated Villages and Migration Problem, 3,428 residences (villages and smaller) have
been evacuated or destroyed in south-eastern and eastern Turkey. The population of these
villages were largely Alevi, Kurdish, Syriac and Yazidi. The villagers have not been compensated
in any way and no alternative accommodation has been provided...""As previously mentioned, in south-eastern Turkey, about 3,500 'residences' were 'cleansed' of their inhabitants or were destroyed without any legal grounds. About 3 million people abandoned their homes and some were forcibly removed because they rejected becoming 'village guards'" (p 36).

Just because DD hasn't heard or bothered to read about Turkish ethnic cleansing of minorities -- taking place today -- it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

DD's ignorance with respect to Turkey is inexcusable.

D’Souza is bizzare. He seems to enjoy expressing absurdities that are obviously wrong.

Today on Front Page Magazine he claims that conservatives immediately saw the war as a clash of the West against Islam. That’s odd, I distinctly remember Bush saying that “Islam means peace” and that it is only a few that “hijacked” Islam. As far as I’m concerned, conservatives rallied around Bush and his “D’Souza agenda” of “winning their hearts and minds” of Muslims. I complained that conservatives just don’t get it but have since been gratified that many are waking up thanks in large part to this venue and others like it.

D’Souza claims that conservatives are “totally blind” to the fact that the “left has made a calculated decision” to implicitly or explicitly ally themselves with the Islamist enemy abroad to defeat America and to “run Bush and the conservatives out of town.” Has D’Souza ever heard of David Horowitz’ book “Unholy Alliance?” If the right is so blind to the far left’s treachery why does the left continually complain about attacks on their loyalty? What planet is D’Souza from?

How can a grown man just make these thinks up and not feel embarrassed?

Hugh says...

"And as for Turkey being a "democracy," what does Dinesh D'Souza make of the need for the Turkish army to intervene, in 1970, and 1980, and 1991?"

That by the way is closet thing to a democracy in the muslim world. Everytime the religious Islamic parties get elected the army kicks them out. God for bid if the army ever goes religious.

I am convinced after reading D'Souza that he has a real bent against "secular government". He has convinced himself it is bad.

closet = "the closest"

By the way, also forgot to mention, with respect to the EU Report (cited above), there was a section devoted to "property ownership" "Restrictions on non-Muslim foundations and the right to property
Under Articles 39 and 40 of the Lausanne Treaty, non-Muslims in Turkey are equal before the
law and shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law as other Turkish nationals. However, since 1974, non-Muslim foundations have been prevented from registering properties. Following the reform packages, including the right to property for non-Muslim foundations, entering into force, a regulation was issued on 24 January 2003. The law and the regulation are insufficient to ensure the full protection of the right to property..." etc.

"Two thirds of Muslims in the world today live in democratic societies, and they certainly aren't wiping out the infidels around them..." --Dinesh D'Souza.

The first problem with this is in his use of the word "democratic." Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and many other Islamic countries can be said to be "democracies." HAMAS was elected democratically by over 70% of Palestinians, at least 83% of whom do not believe that Israel has a right to exist. Hizballah, which instigated last summer's conflict with Israel, has democratically-elected representatives in the Lebanese government. Of course, these countries do not have what most people in the non-Islamic world would call "democracies." Democracy must protect the freedoms of the individual, including freedom of expression and freedom of conscience (viz religion). Out of the 57 OIC countries, none of them can guarantee either of these fundamental rights because of their large Muslim populations, who still practice "traditional" Islam.

Most of the world's Muslims can be found in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt. None of these countries allows freedom of expression, and none of them protects freedom of conscience (viz religion).

D'Souza cites Turkey, Indonesia, and India, and claims that Muslims aren't wiping out infidels there. It isn't for a lack of trying; and it may happen yet, through all kinds of jihad being waged against the non-Muslims in those countries.

In Turkey, criticism of Islam is not permitted [source]. Non-Muslims have been almost entirely wiped out or pushed out. One need only look at the past brutality of various Turkish/Ottoman regimes over the centuries, including the one just previous. Islam traditionally, since Muhammad, had world-conquering aspirations. This past summer during the Israel-Hizballah conflict, thousands of Turkish Muslim demonstrators chanted "Islam will rule the world."source article.

In Indonesia, Muslim groups are attacking Christians there. Indonesia does not permit freedom of expression. About 40% of Indonesians say they personally would employ violence against anyone seen to be blaspheming against Islam. [source ]. School textbooks used in some parts of Indonesia tell children that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death.

India is a strange choice for D'Souza to include, considering that non-Muslim Indians are being hit with terrorist attacks; there are on-going bloody battles between Hindus and Muslims; and historically, as estimated by K.S. Lal, at least 80 million Hindus had been slaughtered by Muslim conquerers.

D'Stupid is too lazy to even do his homework before a televised debate. NEVER READ THE QURAAN!. DOESN'T KNOW THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE TERRORIST MANUAL HE'S APPOINTED HIMSELF TO DEFEND! He's a complete zero! Why would anyone think he would concern himself with historical details, facts of any kind.

Note the academic sloppiness of his sentences:

"It's certainly true..."

Certainly true? Why, because D'Stupid says so?

This guy's been given a free academic ride for way way too long!

I think most of the reaction of Jihad Watchers to Dinesh D'Souza misses the forest for the tree: D'Souza is an unremarkable tree (with the only distinction being the odd fruit of his "Leftists are to blame" thesis) in the forest of Political Correctness. The sense I get from most of the Jihad Watchers' response to this D'Souza tree is a disproportionately surprised dismay at his ignorance of Islam, as though there aren't millions of other trees just like him (except, again, for that odd variety of nut he has grown).

remote control

What's disproportionate is the gap between D'Stupid's ego and his I.Q.

Khaybar makes excellent points as, of course, does Hugh.

D’Souza doesn’t have a problem with democracy; he has a problem with a liberal democracy, i.e. a Republic with constitutional protections for individual (i.e minority) rights; apparently he hasn’t read Polybius, Cicero, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. Mob rule and tyranny of the majority are fine with him (he hasn’t read de Tocqueville either.) Here’s the money quote:

“I’m sympathetic to the strain that says, ‘Listen, let these people run their own societies.’ Even in Iraq, I support the idea of the Iraqi people controlling their own future, but my point is -- let 'em. If the men and women of Iraq vote for a government that wants to have some form of Sharia or holy law, I wouldn’t vote for it and you probably wouldn’t vote for it, but it’s not our country.”

He respects their choice. While I don’t support nations-building, I don’t respect a tyranny of the majority that subjects the individual to totalitarian oppression. It's not "just another choice." I’d hope, a conservative would understand.

remote_control

I agree and you can include G.W. Bush, his father, Bill Clinton, and most of our political leadership on both sides in that PC forest.

However the nut the D'Souza tree produces is about as nasty as it gets. It is dangerous because there the conservative PC trees like the O'Reilly tree and Hannity tree of the Cultural Warrior Family of trees who might buy this nonsense and start growing the same nut.

He has to be cut down...

"Two thirds of Muslims in the world today live in democratic societies, and they certainly aren't wiping out the infidels around them..." -- from Dinesh D'Souza

That's one heck of a standard to judge Muslim-ruled countries by. By D'Souza's standard, America's black community should have been satisfied that no one was trying to wipe them out, despite the fact that many lived as second class citizens and were denied the right to vote and equal protection under the law.

Would D'Souza be content if Muslims in America had to endure what they subject non-Muslims to in their own countries, democracy or no? Would he accept the wholesale destruction of Muslim mosques or the seizure of copies of the Koran? As long as we don't try to wipe out the Muslims around us, then Mr. D'Souza should have no complaints.

Case closed.

Viewpoint from India:
I am ashamed that this Dinesh is from India. Though I am myself a muslim I totally agree with Spencer on most of the issues. I would like to hear the same views from Dinesh if his children would be amongst the ones who were burnt at Godhra by muslims or if his brother would be shot down by a muslim terrorist in Kashmir. It only shows how shameless he is for a few dollars for muslims or for self glory he wishes to praise people who had tried to destroy India and are trying to destroy the whole world. If he is so supportive of muslims ask him to go and stay as a christian in a fukking pakistan or bangladesh or afghanistan as a christian and let us see.

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. Excellent Biblical reference to the handwriting on the wall.

Let us hope Mr. D'Souza seeks out Godly guidance and his benefactors of the Conservatives to help him grow through this difficult time he has gotten himself into.
His best friends are here at Jihad Watch and are his greatest assets. I hope he learns that soon.

imammahdi wrote:
"Though I am myself a muslim"

That statement, followed by the content of the remainder of your post is as illogical as D'Souza's inane ramblings. You open up by saying you are a Muslim and then proceed to beat down Islam as a whole.

It provided no answers, only more questions. Why would anyone associate with and subscribe to an ideology that they apparently detest??

awake

It could be fear. If Imammahdi were to openly apostatize in India, his life wouldn't be worth a dime.

If most Muslims were like him, we wouldn't have a problem.

Mr DeSouza thinks and writes in the best mercenary traditions of self flagellating Indian intellectuals, usually with leftist leanings though, who are ever ready to sell their own country and its people short for the sake of a few dollars more.

Must America too tolerate this? I guess yes...for that's what freedom is all about. Would any muslim country in the world have tolerated a critique of their own society based on a similar presumptive logic [..you know, the West would really love us only if we muslims weren't incredibly unthinking and did not hate everyone else]? I guess no...and the ever-facile, voluble Mr DeSouza would never ever dare to do this, even in his private thoughts.

He is too intelligent not to realise that what he is writing is horsepoop and nonsensical, but he is cunningly aware that this is what will get him the bacon again this time.

There's something called "too clever by half" and that's what he will end up being, as the disingenuous premise on which he bases his flawed and tenuous logic will eventually, when judged by posterity, end up making him look naive, gullible.. and thoroughly mercenary.

D'Souza made a wild miscalculation: he thought his conservative chums would love his new little idea as much as he did. It's not an unreasonable error. His sort log roll with each other all the live-long day, stroking each other for their articulate mediocrity. Over-induldged by a failing educational system, they were taught at an early age that one's own creative antics are more important than grammar or reading or hard work or research or accuracy or that absurdly old-fashioned notion of truth. In this rasher of half-baked vanity you will find an assortment of coddled and lazy idiosyncrasy ranging from Ann Coulter to Andrew Sullivan to Richard Dawkins. (At least Sullivan admits that he has never read anything longer than a magazine.)

In D'Souza's case it was not just the predilection for novelty: it was a mixture of bamboozlement and self-love. Bamboozled by the peaceable muslims he knows (Americans, no doubt, pleasant chaps, perhaps even drinking (!) buddies, who concur about the sad libertine state of the republic, the fags, the feminists, and the secularists, meaning, of course, Jews) and swept away by the ardor of his new-found convivencia, one of those low wattage bulbs--the Christmas tree variety that are so cool that you can safely leave them on all night long--lighted in his brain, and he fell deeply, deeply in love: conservatives, the respectful, well-mannered and upright folk (the sort that his co-religionist Flannery O'Connor made fun of until the peachicks came home), the Christian and the Muslim alike, might still come together as he does with his chums after work, in one of those sanitized, midtown representations of a dive bar, to wash all the filth from the earth.

Like a small child, he took his little glowing bulb into the darkest place he could find, his little mid town bar, so as to observe the little idea as minutely as possible. He smothered it in darkness, leaving the door open just a bit, so as not to scare himself overly. There a slender shaft of light called Bernard Lewis entered, but it did not diminish his brilliant little bulb too much.

Now, however, he is dragged, blinking, out into the daylight, and his dim bulb seems not to be lighted at all. He is usually not treated this way. But that's what happens when it's 1938 and you write about all the good things that Hitler has done for German morale.

It's all a sad side-effect of professional punditry: you start out doing it because you think that ideas matter; then, over time, having had to churn out hundreds of unheeded and self-righteous bits of whipped air, you are brought to the ineluctable conclusion that ideas don't matter at all. If they really mattered, how could you have spit out so many of them, on such varied topics, with so little reflection?

But you were right the first time. They do matter: some of them immeasurably, and some of them immeasurably little. Most of the ideas of most of the pundits are near to worthless, because they are so common, so numbingly obvious, or because they are absurd and witless half-truths--cranked out without research or reflection to feed the yawning periodical maw--from which no meaning or benefit can be derived. They are for entertainment purposes only.

The pundits fail to realize that, over time, they have become mere entertainers. They are no longer real thinkers, but merely play such on television. Thus, it is a critical mistake for such a reduced intellect to take on a serious topic, an idea that really does matter.

Think of a tv doctor wandering into a real, live operating room and barking out some orders from an old script. Think, more comically, of Fr. Guido Sarducci, the well-beloved SNL player who, misapprehending the importance of context, was arrested at the Vatican for impersonating a priest.

I was unaware that DD was a Roman Catholic. He said he was a Christian in one of his books.

Unfortunately, Vatican II perpetuates the idea that Muslims, Jews, and Christians pray to the same god. John Paul II was a notorious dhimmi who kissed the Koran and said "this is God's word."

DD is interested in maintaining the cult of DD. I saw his website yesterday and found self-aggrandizing, shallow propaganda there. It's clear he hasn't actually studied the Koran, knows little about it, and cares little. There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Why he's continuing his debate with Spencer via email I have know idea. If he truly was an intellectual, he wouldn't resort to ad hominem. Maybe he is interested in the truth, but I suspect not.

"Turkey: Secular government put into power by force, keeping Islam at bay, and yet it's still in danger of being toppled because the Islamic clergy won't give up pushing for a theocracy. (Sounds like the cabbies who won't abide by U.S. law...)"

Foehamme,

You're absolutely right. Turkey is a ticking time-bomb, and it's going to explode into a full-blown Islamic State, sooner or later.

Unfortunately, it'll probably be sooner than later, and at the insistence of the European Union.

The European Union has been insisting for years that Turkey comply with the same standards of freedom for political parties as other union members. Which means of course that Islamic parties will be free to run and be elected without interference from the military.

When that unhappy day comes, you can be sure that the Islamics will sweep into power, and we can say goodby to anything resembling Democracy in Turkey.

It's only a matter of time!

De Souza seems to have missed the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975 and the occupation lasting until 1999, in which the Indonesians killed approximately 200,000 people. This may have been pure colonialism rather than jihad, but it certainly isn't an example of how peaceful and democratic Muslim countries are.

Ironically, the only truly democratic Muslim country in the world today seems to be Somaliland, the breakaway region of Somalia not yet fully recognised as a country by most governments. If we want to include truly democratic countries with a large Muslim minority, in addition to India there is of course Israel.

Infidel Pride wrote:
"It could be fear. If Imammahdi were to openly apostatize in India, his life wouldn't be worth a dime."

That may be true, it could be fear, but if he truly desires to leave Islam but can not, due to concerns for his life, he should just say so.

His post was way too nebulous to understand his true intentions and I still maintain that the request for clarification was not unwarranted.

As far as your claim that, "If most Muslims were like him, we wouldn't have a problem." Well I for one think that is jumping the gun a bit. It is refreshing to hear that he totally agrees with Spencer on most issues, but more illuminating would be his clarification on exactly what issues he doesn't agree with Robert on.

Dinesh D'Souza has a blog:
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza

Somebody please educate him.

One word: Poseur.

Well now, what will be the next place of Muslim aggression, Cyprus? Muslims are in an 18% minority, but that won't stop them. If Cyprus does boil over it will be because of Greek permisiveness; I'm sure.

pelayo,

Cyprus has already been unofficially separated into a Greek (orthodox) part and a Turkish (muslim) part. That resulted from a long civil war.

Wrathofasma, a partition is an imaginary boundary that will not stop Muslim aggression. If an international boundary means nothing, what does this "partition" mean?

What percentage of "liberal values" are a motivation for Muslim terrorist, one being the pushing of abortion on their culture?
Tell us, Hugh or Robert.
Is it not a recruitment tool in the modern phase of Muslim aggression, not the pre 20th century Muslim aggression? What percentage Hugh or Robert, or are you just viewing the world through your own needs and wants which appear to end at the same world view as a liberal about Muslims, only a materialistic pov .?
Interesting, you lose more allies amongst conservatives, and make yourself smaller and smaller as a force to change the world.
Then again, maybe this site is filled with atheist/humanist libertarians, who will always remain rolling logs to their cabins, while lowering wages to recruit more young males into the sex trade in the USA, as is done in Indonesia.

DeSouza is blind, a real useful idiot...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe
wants Taliban Earth

that's what liberals want too
destroy all human rights
.

pelayo

Here's some more information on Cyprus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus

I suppose it's only a matter of time. Like the situation in Kashmir, there will be a time when Nicosia gets bombed by home-grown militants.

"Who is Dinesh D'Souza? Is he a muslim?"

He's a Catholic from India. He was a young conservative hot-shot fresh out of the Ivy League about 10 years back or so (maybe more). He's famous for being a credentialed conservative intellectual who looks good on TV.

"The sense I get from most of the Jihad Watchers' response to this D'Souza tree is a disproportionately surprised dismay at his ignorance of Islam, as though there aren't millions of other trees just like him"

It isn't just ignorance of Islam. It is willful ignorance that puts us in danger, and there is an important spin to it that groups these people with the leftists who have been making common cause with Islam for years.

D'Souza is one of a number of people pushing the Republicans and the Conservatives into the same blame-the-West type of thinking that Ward Churchill types have popularized on the left.

This weakens us, because it leads us from thinking about what we need to think about to seriously fight this long war, and leads us to blaming ourselves and feeling guilty for any fighting we must do to survive (including intellectual fighting), making that fighting less effective on average.

His "nut" is a fairly original method of doing the above.

My best guess at why they are doing this is some perverted version of the generally good idea that you should *check* the fault for something bad is with you before checking whether it lies with others.

They're also freaked at the possibility that, if Muslims refuse to reform Islam, we may end up having to choose between killing a lot of people, or submitting to Islam. They're rather not think about the chance that we may have to make this choice, and are instead pretending we can assume Muslims will just reform Islam on their own if we give them enough "space" (ie, stop talking about the problems in Islam).

I suspect that many would rather submit than kill lots of people to defend themselves and their culture. I suspect that this is a big part of the reason they'd rather not even consider whether we might be forced into making that choice.

The sad part is that, the more "space" we give, the less (non-violent) incentive there is for Muslims to reform, and the more likely that horrible choice will eventually have to be made.

rondhimmi

I am sure Mr. Spencer does need me to respond to this simple nonsense but I will answer a few just for the hell of it.

you say..

"Is it not a recruitment tool in the modern phase of Muslim aggression, not the pre 20th century Muslim aggression? "

Yes of course it is a tool but so is the fact that Christians dominate America. How many times have jihadist said this is a "Zionist and Crusader war". When was the last time you heard them say "This a is liberal war of porn"? You can't have it both ways unless you think Christians and Jews are immoral. Jihadist use any reason they can to get recruits but the strongest pull is found within the Islamic faith itself.

"Interesting, you lose more allies amongst conservatives, and make yourself smaller and smaller as a force to change the world."

Yes we have two choices:

(1) The D'Souza plan: Plan will fail because it does not address the root cause. So what we get rid of all the liberals. We will still be at war with them. Now how does solve our problem.

(2) The Spencer plan: Plan addresses the root cause and will at least protect our culture from being eliminated or win the thing outright.

It seems D'Souza is one losing allies not Mr. Spencer. The truth will win in the end not weak attacks without proof.

"Then again, maybe this site is filled with atheist/humanist libertarians, who will always remain rolling logs to their cabins, while lowering wages to recruit more young males into the sex trade in the USA, as is done in Indonesia."

Well I am a conservative from the Republican party who has family roots in the party from the days of Lincoln. The rest of this statment makes no sense. It seems to me you think there is a sex trade in Indonesia because of the American left? Hahahahahahahahaha...god that is a true howler.

The rest is pointless insults....no argumets just pure hateful attacks. It is odd how everyone wants to use the term "Islamophobes" but I would say you sir are a "Truthophobe" and several other phobes by your comments.

Dinesh D'Souza has a blog: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza Somebody please educate him. Posted by: PRCalDude

I doubt he allows such comments. I perused his blog, and it looks like he only allows in those who make him look good. In other words, posts that agree with his position, and from the other side, ad hominem attacks on him are what's allowed. That way, he looks accepting of criticism, but posts that really challenge him aren't accepted. I tried posting a couple of times there, but it didn't appear, so I left it for good.

Only difference between him and Esmay is that he is more influential, with the Bill Bennetts of the world. I however think he doesn't have much of a grassroots support - an elitist like him can't.

"What percentage of "liberal values" are a motivation for Muslim terrorist, one being the pushing of abortion on their culture?"

Neither "liberal values", Western "decadence" nor "licentiousness" have anything to do with Muslim rage at our culture. I'll repeat:

Even if America followed all of the edicts of Puritanism (which it largely does), Islam would still be attacking us solely because we are not Islamic. Islam will always be dissatisfied with absolutely anything that is not Islamic. Hell, Shiias are sufficiently un-Islamic whereby they are being slaughtered wholesale by comparison to attacks on Westerners or even Jews!

Even if America had a less “licentious” culture, we would still be fair game in Islam’s eyes, if only due to us charging interest on loans. It is precisely this return on investment that propelled Europe and (eventually) the West well past Islam’s perpetually stagnant economic system. Spain’s prohibition of usury is why they're such an industrial European powerhouse today.

DO NOT fool yourself. Men and women kissing or hugging in public (or even in movies, for that matter), bathing at the same beach, dancing together in discos or even in the privacy of their own homes; All of these innocuous activities are deeply offensive in the blinkered eyes of Islam’s mullahs and reason enough to behead the lot of us.

When will you realize that American “licentiousness” is just another arbitrary item on an endless laundry list of Muslim grievances that Islamists trot out each time they are called upon to justify their endless slaughter and atrocities? Even if America did not exist, Islam would still be out mass murdering the kufar or those deemed “insufficiently Islamic” in their eyes. Ask the African Christians (who are not at all “licentious”), ask the Shiia, their own fellow Muslim brethren. Ask the Danish cartoonists whose own children have been threatened.

Further:

Consider this as well, some Islamic clergy hold that even prosperity is undesirable as it makes Muslims comfortable and less willing to give up their lives for jihad. They view any attachment to this material world as going against the grain of Islam's austere spiritual nature. Such comfort, just as with the Internet, is viewed as diverting the ummah's attention from the required degree of religious observance.

Equally as bad, of course, is democracy. How can man, in his monumental conceit, possibly presume to make laws that govern other men when the inviolable examples of Allah's word and the Prophet's life are there for all to live by?

These are the reasons that Islam wants to kill us; Democracy, prosperity, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Shall we give up all these hard won freedoms solely to please a bunch of eternally humiliated psychotic fanatical thugs?

I am least surprised by DSouza's (mis)understanding of Islam.
If I am correct, he was born and brought up in India during the Nehru-Indira Gandhi era when the whole education industry was in the hands of the commies (It still is). The Mughal/Islamic period was always shown as the golden period of Indian history. Educated in such an environment where Muslim invaders are depicted as paragons of virtues in all history books, it is difficult for DSouza to believe otherwise. DSouza believes appeasement of Muslims is the best way to avoid trouble. This again is typical of Indian politics with the Indian political centrists and the left that is in power. It seems DSouza has locked his mind and thrown away the key. He is one of those useful idiots for the muslims.

"Unfortunately, Vatican II perpetuates the idea that Muslims, Jews, and Christians pray to the same god. John Paul II was a notorious dhimmi who kissed the Koran and said "this is God's word." "

This is very, very unfortunate.

Luckly, most Catholics do take the concept of infallibility of the pope as something, well, fallible.

but millions upon millions of people, in the main Hindus, to simply pack up and leave both Pakistan and Bangladesh.

What became of those countries after all the non muslims left, cesspoolstan! islam suffucates any human sense of achievement through hard work, and replaces it with poverty, corruptness. Look at Pakistan!

This information is amazing, yet was unknown to me before...

Mr Fitzgerald should consider writing a book on this topic - it really hits home.

My wife comes from a country that was occupied by Turks. From the evidence of their occupation in the country (which I'd rather not mention) it is clear that Muslims are, and always have been, pitiless savages.

- Stefcho.

Fitzgerald: please consider writing more on this. It's an important subject for all us kuffars.

Stefcho -- I can't imagine why you would not wish to mention the country your wife comes from. But your own name sounds Bulgarian, and there is plenty of evidence in Bulgaria itself for what the Ottoman Turks did for no Bulgarian to have any illusions about Islam. So you would not be required to visit her country to find out evidence, physical and intangible (how does one "see" the devshirme?).

In "The Legacy of Jihad" Andrew Bostom includes several articles, one by a Bulgarian scholar, on the Jihad in southern Europe. Take a look.

D'Souza is a stark reminder, if not the worst nightmare, for many here, at LGF, Newsmax, etc.: a conservative, religious Dhimmi of the first order. Remember that, friends. The liberals are not your enemy; our shared enemy is radical Islam and it's adherents. Some of us on both sides are on the Money Train that flows from your SUVs, back through Mecca and Medina, and into the grubby little mitts of jihadis, Muslim preachers, and professional "journalists" and "social reformers" like D'Souza, George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley, and Grover Norquist.

keithjoy

fanorollins@yahoo.com

I am least surprised by DSouza's (mis)understanding of Islam.
If I am correct, he was born and brought up in India during the Nehru-Indira Gandhi era when the whole education industry was in the hands of the commies (It still is). The Mughal/Islamic period was always shown as the golden period of Indian history. Educated in such an environment where Muslim invaders are depicted as paragons of virtues in all history books, it is difficult for DSouza to believe otherwise. DSouza believes appeasement of Muslims is the best way to avoid trouble. This again is typical of Indian politics with the Indian political centrists and the left that is in power. It seems DSouza has locked his mind and thrown away the key. He is one of those useful idiots for the muslims.
Posted by: jack on March 7, 2007 06:32 PM

Jack, I believe your assessment is right on the dot. D'Souza's historical knowledge has been clouded by the Marxist view of history that was fed to him in his native India. In Indian schoolbooks and the media, an idyllic picture of Hindu-Muslim harmony in the pre-British period is propagated in outright contradiction with the testimony of the primary sources. However, no matter how much the Indian government tries to whitewash the crimes of the Muhhammadans there remains plenty of evidence to point towards the real history. For one, muslim historians and courtsmen themselves have glorified the actions of the muslim conquerors and quite openly (and proudly) chronicled their systematic killing of Hindus wherever they went.

Like Holocaust denial, the type of propaganda that people like Dinesh D'Souza engage in when creating this fictitious picture of Hindu-Muslim harmony, can be called negationism. The really daring negationists don't just deny the crimes against Hindus, they invert the picture and blame the Hindus themselves. (Note, we see this trend somehow creeping up in the West as well, with people blaming themselves for the actions of Muslims). Thus, it is routinely alleged that Hindus persecuted and destroyed Buddhism; in reality, Buddhist monasteries and universities flourished under Hindu rule, but their thousands of monks were killed by Ghori and his lieutenants.

Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Bagdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus. Slaves were likely to die of hardship, e.g. the mountain range Hindu Koh, "Indian mountain", was renamed Hindu Kush, "Hindu-killer", when one cold night in the reign of Timur Lenk (1398-99), a hundred thousand Hindu slaves died there while on transport to Central Asia. Though Timur conquered Delhi from another Muslim ruler, he recorded in his journal that he made sure his pillaging soldiers spared the Muslim quarter, while in the Hindu areas, they took "twenty slaves each". Hindu slaves were converted to Islam, and when their descendants gained their freedom, they swelled the numbers of the Muslim community. It is a cruel twist of history that the Muslims who forced Partition on India were partly the progeny of Hindus enslaved by Islam.

Dinesh D"Souza, if he was intellectually honest, would do well to study Indian history before blabbering how good the Islamic conquest in India was. He needn't study just ancient history. Look at what has happened in recent history. First muslims demand a separate land for themselves from mother India. They are given that on a platter, and what do they do, simply make life untolerable for the Hindu minority amongst them with the net result that both Pakistan and the current Bangla Desh have been effectively wiped out. In contrast, muslims are thriving in India and their population continues to increase at an alarming rate. However, ethnic cleansing of Hindus goes on to this day even in India, in the region of Kashmir (where I come from). Thousands of Kashmiri Hindus have been killed in cold blood and driven out of Kashmir by Islamic jehadists who want to convert Kashmir into a dar-ul-Islam. And yes, none of this had anything to do with Britney Spears or the so-called 'loose' moral values of the 'decadent' American left.

To the tune of "Jesus Loves Me"

Muslims loves us! This I know,
For Dinesh D'Souza tells me so.
With us conservatives they belong;
Spencer and Serje just see them wrong.

Because
yes the Muslims love us
Yes the Muslims love us
Yes the Muslims love us
Dinesh D'Souza tells me so