Tonight: Does Islam respect human rights?

Do I have to watch if I already know the answer?

I'm sure Robert will be in top form as he always is...

Short answer to the qustion "Does Islam respect human rights?": NO!!!!!!!!!!

Robert, I hope you take the time to define "Human Rights" as the islamists deliberately attempt to make the phrase meaningless (or to mean anything they want it to mean).

More precisely I mean that, given human rights is not clearly defined at the onset of the debate, that you are given or have time to properly define it.

Will this be available on video afterwards?

And hey, I just noticed that the *Submit* button below has FINALLY been changed!

Bravo! No longer do I have to *submit,* I can now *publish!*

This'll be a cracker.

http://newstime.co.nz/pedophile-mass-murderer-apologist-nazan-eckes.html
ISLAM IS 100% PURE EVIL WITH ZERO HUMANITY

Let's reverse the question: Do human rights respect islam? Same answer at a guess.

let me tell you something. unless you go right by the book Islam does not give a shit about human right or humanity.
m

Human Rights and Islam

Check out these pie charts from the international human rights organization Freedom House. Scroll down to the regional pie charts. The pie chart for the Middle East/North Africa -- which happens to be the core Islamic region -- shows the most unfree area in the world. However, one country included in the Middle East/North Africa pie chart is listed as "free." Can you guess which one that is? (Hint: It's not Islamic.)

DOES ISLAM RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS?

Excuse me for not replying directly to that question, because I'm trying to get over the fact that there is a TEXAS Islamic Center.

I'm thinking of the quote that I heard by Bill Maher, not too long ago, about "tolerating intolerance." I don't remember the exact words. I just know that tolerating intolerance is self-destructive. WTF is going on with the United States, that it would allow a site of intolerance to be erected on its soil?

There is no doubt that, to the enemy, we, on this side of the fight, come off as one stupid lot.

Give him hell Robert..Oh wait,he's already got that..Just maim him good!

Watching Robert chuckle to himself when El-Hassan was babbling about mecca suras being the koran version of the new testament and the medina suras being the koran version of the old testament was hilarious. The guy basically proved he either has no clue whatsoever or he was intentionally trying to decieve.. I'm genuinely not sure which one he is. A bit of both maybe

Spencer is tearing apart the man....the man actually is mixing everything up.. maybe that is his wish..that the Meccan verses took precedent over the Medinan....poor man

He knows full well he has screwed the debate. The desperation in his voice is hilarious

Circular nonsense from El-Hassan. To quote Chris Hitchen's favourite phrase "babble, more babble"

I almost felt sorry for the guy at how badly he was outmatched.

Great job, Robert. You covered every point with tact and directness. Excellent. The Sheik was essentially filleted. You demolished every silly and false claim he attempted to advance.

I missed it. Is there, or will there be, an archival video link for it?

Thanks.

I'm glad I watched last night, the load of silliness that 'sheik' tried to spread was funny, funny, funny! Robert could not stop smiling through the entire hour. I would never have dreamed up the idea that allah abrogated the Medina verses, can't even say nice try.

Is this the best an Islamic "theologian" can do??

All I heard was smoke and mirrors: not answering the questions, laughable logic, self-contradictions etc etc.

He is called a "sheikh" and "president of an islamic center" and de facto these titles make the viewer more disposed to view him as knowledgeable and worthy of a certain respect.

When will the media start to talk about the content of what these carnival hucksters really say?

Really? Huh, Damian?

Have you actually read ANYTHING of Chomsky?

Spare us the nonsense. Spencer would "eat" Chomsky alive.

Prove your case, sir.

You are definitely out to lunch on this claim Damian. I have watched Chomsky debates and I could probably beat him. Mr. Spencer would steamroll this cretin.

I have no idea why Chomsky is perceived to be such a great scholar and debater.

I think part of the answer is the decline in educational standards in the west in recent decades. Most graduates nowadays seem to know far too little about history.

This makes it possible for someone like Chomsky to say anything he wants in full knowledge that he can get away with it because his opponent's foundation in history is too weak.

Someone like Dr. Spencer, who knows his history and who is Vulcan-like in his approach to deconstructing fallacious arguments would have little problem with the likes of Chomsky.

If you want to get a real idea of how weak Chomsky is, go to YouTube and watch his debate with Alan Dershowitz. The debate deals with the lost peace process in Palestine (Camp David 2000, Taba, and Oslo).

I had never been a fan of Dershowitz up to seeing this debate. By the end of it I thought he was the greatest debater on the planet. Well, maybe I didn't quite think that but I definitely held him in high regard.

At that point in time, I only knew that Chomsky had a reputation for being a great debater so I expected his confrontation with Dershowitz would be absolutely awesome. Talk about shattered expectations.

The debate spans 14 YouTube clips but it will be worth your while to watch the entire set. The URL for the first clip is located at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvJrb5lKu4

If you listen to all the clips and apply even a modicum of critical thinking you should notice at least forty times when Chomsky is either lying or speaking half truths. Included in that count will be instances of hypocrisy where he claims something is true based on diplomatic records which he claims are trustworthy but in other places he says you can't trust diplomats because they lie. Not surprisingly he does this where it is beneficial for his argument.

There is at least one case where he claims a person who nobody has heard of (Ron Pundac) is the preeminent scholar on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. It becomes obvious in the debate that Chomsky must present this guy in that light because he is using Pundac's opinions to bolster his case against Israel.

I will deal with a few examples to show how weak he is at debating.

1)He contradicts himself (instantly)

When you play clip 5 of the debate you will hear Chomsky say "Yes, I think it is very relevant to understand history if you want to understand the present". This was in answer to a question from the audience about whether both the Palestinians and the Israelis have to come to an agreement on what 1948 represents for each side before they can come to a peace agreement now.

In clip 6 Dershowitz gives his rebuttal and goes into the history of the facts that can't be refuted about 1948 "the facts that no amount of rhetoric can undercut that reality."

Chomsky by way of reply refuses to discuss the facts of 1948 and dismisses 1948 as "not relevant".

Holy crap, just 1 or 2 minutes before he agreed that history must be understood to understand the present. The original question posed by the audience member specifically pertained to 1948. He didn't tell the audience member that 1948 was irrelevant when he posed the question.

1948 is obviously the most important and relevant date in the history of the Middle East.

Chomsky's reply was cretinous and an out-and-out lie. The reason he dismissed it was to avoid getting into particulars (real history) that he knew would undermine his case. He did say he was willing to debate that issue if Dershowitz wanted to and then moved on to the next topic instantly to curtail Dershowitz accepting the offer (he made a few more disingenuous offers of this type throughout the debate)

Dershowitz allowed Chomsky to escape on this one but I think Robert Spencer would have gone for blood.

2)Uses contradiction not proof to support his arguments

One of Chomsky's main claims in his opening speech was that peace could have been had at Taba but Israel walked out. Now that was news to me because even the news media at that time had reported that Arafat walked out.

On clip 7, Dershowitz as an aside in dealing with another question, points out that both Bill Clinton and Dennis Ross the chief negotiator at Camp David told him that it was Arafat and Prince Bandr who walked out.

Later on, Chomsky says that Dennis Ross was the American negotiator at Camp David so "his word is meaningless". WTF?

Admittedly, Chomsky said this in answer to another issue but his message to the audience was clear 'ignore anything Dershowitz says if the name Dennis Ross is involved.

Chomsky's assertion that Ross is a liar is only a contradiction of a truth asserted by Dershowitz. As such it isn't proof of anything.

The map that Chomsky asks the audience to accept as the Camp David negotiations comes from this ethereal Ron Pundac character but no argument is given by Chomsky as to why the audience should accept it over the one presented by Dershowitz. Essentially you are expected to accept it because Chomsky says its legitimate. At best you should accept it because it comes from the leading scholar Ron Pundac.

If you are interested, look up Ron Pundac in Wikipedia. You will see that he hasn't really done anything of account that would make him the leading scholar of anything. It's even hard to figure out why this guy has an article in Wikipedia.

3)Planet Chomsky
On clip 8 (around 2:20 mark) Chomsky again tries to refute the authenticity of the peace settlement map presented by Dershowitz. Again Chomsky reintroduces the magical Ron Pundac and says Pundac's map trumps Dershowitz's because Pundac was at the Oslo accords as well as Camp David and Taba.

Well it was a bad day for Chomsky because there happened to be an Israeli diplomat in the audience who was one of the actual advisers to Barak at Camp David. This guy is also a friend of Ron Pundac. So he should be considered to be the most knowledgeable man in the room on the debate topic. This guy calls Chomsky out for lying to the audience regarding Pundac. This is seen at the beginning of clip 11.

He flatly states that Pundac was not at Camp David.

Then Chomsky to cover his ass tries to claim that Pundac was one of the negotiators WORKING IN THE BACKGROUND. Again the diplomat says he wasn't. Chomksy still trying to save some face keeps trying to twist the story in a way that this diplomat will back him up. The diplomat finally says "Pundac was never close to Camp David, just for the record."

Now Chomsky said to the guy "You're the one who said you agree with him".

This related to a question asked by Chomsky earlier when he asked "I assume you endorse Pundac's expert knowledge, right?" The diplomat said "yes".

Endorsing the fact that Pundac is an expert is separate and apart from the question of whether Pundac was at Camp David.

This trick used by Chomsky is like a lawyer impeaching his own witness to better the argument for his client. Chomsky was trying to make it look as though the diplomat was contradicting himself when he wasn't.

I am sure this fact didn't escape the attention of the audience.

Chomsky corrected the diplomat one last time on Pundac being part of Camp David and Dershowitz had had enough and stated "If Chomsky says it, it must be true."

Chomsky had lost the debate by this point, there was nothing he could do to dig himself out of the hole in which he had put himself.

How f***ing stupid is Chomsky? Does this guy really teach at an American University?

How can anybody take anything he has said as true after this fiasco?

I think even Goebbels would be ashamed to be seen in his presence.

4) Uses data that disproves his contention
On clip 7 Chomsky claims the balance of the acts of terrorism were executed by Israel against the Palestinians. He mentions that in the one month period of the intifada 74 Palestinians were killed and only 4 Israelis. He then mentions that in the first day alone the Israeli army fired over 1 million bullets. Well, logic says that is an indication that Israel was not practicing terrorism it was practicing extreme restraint. I think you or I blindfolded would have been able to kill a thousand Palestinians with that many bullets. Chomsky didn't give a number for how many were killed that first day but I'm guessing it was close to zero based on his death toll for the entire month. Even if all 74 were killed the first day, that number is incredibly low considering the Palestinians were hurling rocks and considering the number of bullets that were fired.

Speaking of the one million bullets fired, that has to represent a huge number of 'situations' requiring a response from a rifle. In such cases, how much restraint is any army required to show? I suspect Chomsky doesn't care. His point is to find whatever propaganda he can to prove his point.

Part of the purpose of a debate is to try to find truth or at least get closer to it. I don't think that would ever be possible when Chomsky is part of a debate. He is too interested in his political agenda and that agenda is antithetical to truth.

So, no, Chomsky is not a great debater but Robert Spencer is. This is not a matter of Chomsky's age (or Robert's youth) it is a question of talent, integrity and knowledge.

Robert excels in all three, Chomsky has at best pretend knowledge and mediocre talent. As far as integrity goes he doesn't seem to have very much of that.

Anyway, sorry for the extended soap box but I thought your premise was too much of a stretch to go unchallenged.