If Colmes brings up the Kyollo case, it's distinguishable.
1) Searches for radiation are not intrusive, to wit, don't reveal any innocent activities or behaviors. Radiation detection ONLY reveals nuclear radiation.
2) There are no simple, innocent explanations for high radiation levels.
3) Nuclear materials are inherently dangerous to the surrounding environment, unlike marijuana plants and high-intensity grow lights.

If the police are lawfully seized (standing somewhere legally) and only measuring radiation, there's no legal argument against checking for radiation. If they are trespassing, the remedy is a civil action.

Posted by: Beagle at December 28, 2005 9:08 PM

I haven't heard you on the radio in quite a while. I'll be listening.

I hope that by the time you're done with him, he'll understand that (1) there really are good and faithful Muslims out there who intend to kill us, and (2) as there's no way to figure out who amongst the flock they might be, and since (3) the American Muslim community seems incapable of resolving the problem themseleves, that others WILL do that job for them.

And the life saved might be Alan's.

Posted by: PRCS at December 28, 2005 9:13 PM

The check for radation in the islamic "churches" as such can be done without warrants, or even without the knowledge of the people attending, if it is intended for public access. Non private buildings or areas allows that access by their nature, to simply check for "somthing in the air".

Colmss will probally not agree.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 28, 2005 9:20 PM

SUPER DUPER OPPORTUNITY MR. SPENCER! Knock 'em Dead! I'll be listening. You would really need to hammer him with fact after fact detailing the use of mosques as meeting places of conspirators and hiding places for stockpiles of weapons...in India, Chechnya, Indonesia, Thailand, Britain, France, Jamaica(?). I think Colmes is a man who is honest enough to contend with facts. Analyses can be debated however strong they maybe, but facts cannot be.
G'luck!

Posted by: Tushar Saxena at December 28, 2005 9:24 PM

Colmes's face looks extra-terrestrial.

Kick his ass Robert!

Posted by: Cornelius at December 28, 2005 9:57 PM

I've been watching Hannity & Colmes for a couple of years now and Alan Colmes doesn't strike me as the kind of "liberal" who can be convinced by facts. He and his ilk are much too strongly ideologised to have an open mind. I still wish you luck, Robert. Maybe you can convince a few of his "liberal" listeners.

Posted by: disillusioned_german at December 28, 2005 10:07 PM

Robert

Can you appear on Hannity & Colmes sometime soon?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 28, 2005 10:14 PM

There's a "listen live" link on the Fox News Radio page:

http://www.foxnews.com/alancolmesradio/index.html

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 28, 2005 10:28 PM

Colmes has a habit of trying to come at you like a prosecutor if he chooses not to accept your position. He doesn't wait for full and complete answers before he is coming at you with other questions and comments. hopefully he will allow you to make your points.

Posted by: Mackie at December 28, 2005 10:30 PM

I don't think either Hannity or Colmes is that
bright. Didn't Colmes think that $40M from
Prince Whateverthe!@#$hisnameis was to promote
peace and tolerance and understanding? And didn't
Hannity make the obvious point that you can't build churches or celebrate Christmas in that
place where they worship the pedophile?

Posted by: American at December 28, 2005 10:33 PM

Yeah, I'm listening to the show while waiting for him to chat with Robert Spencer, and I think Alan's a likeable guy, but geeeeeeez, I can't believe the stuff I'm hearing: He just had the "Peace" candidate for the US Senate in New York. After extended sparring on the semantics of how liberal this guy believes himself to be, the candidate went on to suggest the US pull out of Iraq and be replaced by the Arab League, UN, and so on.

When will Bob from Bowie (pronounced "Booey") Maryland call in? (A classic Larry King Moment) ;)

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 28, 2005 10:52 PM

OT-- Anyone know who's playing "Sweet Home Chicago" in the Colmes show interlude right now? I neeeeeeed that!

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 28, 2005 11:04 PM

Alam Colmes is a freaking snake! I'm listening too and every time Robert starts to go into an area Alan doesnt like he interupts Robert with another question and keep interupting robert until he's done, though you can never hear Robert finish his thought.

Robert, you started to give off some names on muslims in America who have preached Jihad etc. in our country and Alan tried to make a point that its no big deal that you can name one or two people. Next time someone interupts you with this, say you can mention much much more and then challenge the interviewer to name ONE muslim who works with local and federal authorties to find and capture terrorists.

I bet they cant name one....

Posted by: Avatar at December 28, 2005 11:20 PM

"No constitutional right to emit radiation." Quote of the day!

The first segment was such a one-sided conversation. Alan didn't follow up or take issue with anything RS said; he just went through a litany of questions.

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 28, 2005 11:24 PM

A caller named Aisha...

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 28, 2005 11:28 PM

I don't think either Hannity or Colmes is that
bright. Didn't Colmes think that $40M from
Prince Whateverthe!@#$hisnameis was to promote
peace and tolerance and understanding? And didn't
Hannity make the obvious point that you can't build churches or celebrate Christmas in that
place where they worship the pedophile?
- American

American, I don't think Hannity is bright at all, even though I by & large agree w/ him. He typically comes to the table and even on his radio show w/ standard template statements, like "weakening the country by opposing the president in time of war". Even if one agrees w/ the sentiment, the fact that he doesn't elaborate on that at all makes his statements sound hollow. Also, if one calls his show and makes a good point, all he does is repeat his previous statement, and then pat the caller on the back "Good call".

Only time he does come up w/ something good is when he hears it from Rush. If you want really good arguments on the Right, the top 4 names that come to mind are Rush Limbaugh, Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer and Lee Rodgers (whose program was the one where I first heard Robert and learnt about JihadWatch.)

On the topic of Islam, however, Hannity has been somewhat okay, but even there, he has been quoting the most innocuous of Quranic verses - "Take neither Christian nor Jew for a friend." Still, whenever a caller tries to point out obvious things about Islam, he warns against painting w/ a broad brush, and suggests judging everyone as individuals. Which by itself is fine, except when those individuals have the Quranic ideology in common.

As for Colmes, while he may not be too bright, one thing I do admire about him is that unlike most Liberals, he debates the issues, rather then resort to personal attacks. That is the good thing about him. That said, if I was a Liberal and wanted a good debater, I'd rather have Neal Gabler on this program, and have Colmes on Fox News Watch.

Anyway, hope to hear/see more from Robert in these programs.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 28, 2005 11:33 PM

If the Colmes model of equivalence between Islam and Christianity is correct, one predicted result would be that we should be able to observe a ring of Neo-Nazis planning acts of mass violence from amongst the attendents of churches such as the Crystal Cathedral in the USA.

Will we also find the Christian equivalent of an Adam Gadahn breaking attending to such a Church in order to join a global network of Christian terrorists citing Biblical text as justification for such acts of violence?

Posted by: Dilophos at December 28, 2005 11:37 PM

sheik yer'mami: Sounds like a lefty kinda snake-pit

That's a perfect description. It's amazing how people like Colmes can put their heads in the sand and pretend that mainstream Islam is OK. Robert you put up a spirited debate, despite the attempts by Colmes and his callers to derail you. I can imagine how frustrating it must be to talk to someone like Colmes.... all of us face similar experiences talking with people around us.

Posted by: Razdan at December 28, 2005 11:42 PM

Robert is very intricate with his arguments and makes very good points on this web site. I get very frustrated with myself when I can't remember many of his points and argumants when I try to argue or explain these issues to family and friends. For the first time I heard Robert tonight have the same problem. Not that he forgot his own points but he was consistantly interupted when he did try to make them and as a result he seemed to get very flustered. He didnt have much time to broaden his arguments knowing Allen would interupt him and therefore some of his arguments fell flat and repeating.
It seems like its not even worth spening 20 minutes on a liberal sided radio show if this is the way an argument is going to be handled. Of course, Bill O'Reilley does the same thing...

Posted by: Avatar at December 28, 2005 11:43 PM

The one thing that stuck me was when Robert was talking about Freedom House's report on the Saudis funnelling hate literature into American Mosques. I've seen examples of these hateful booklets, and they're disgusting. Either Alan doesn't believe this, or he was not concerned about it at all. If even a tiny percent of Churches were in possession of Nazi hate literature the screams in the media would be deafening. Why do some people give hatred a pass when Muslims are involved. Also, doesn't common sense say that if these pamphlets are in the Mosque, that the Mosque is likely in harmony with the hate messages in those pamphlets?

Posted by: USAFan at December 28, 2005 11:47 PM

As I pointed out above, even before Robert came on the Colmes radio show, If Colmes disagrees with your positions he will come on like a prosecutor and make all kinds of cookie analogies, and broad comments that represent not at all what you are trying to say while stepping all over you as you try to give some rational or at least some resonable explanations for your positions.

He is your typical liberal who will take no time and really listen to the guests viewpoint, He once again displayed his complete ignorance, even praising CAIR, and when Robert tried to make some comments about CAIR-- once again Colmes stepped all over him because he simply does not want to listen.

Posted by: Mackie at December 28, 2005 11:48 PM

That's why my preferred medium for debate/discussion is text; no one can interrupt or cut me off. For that reason, as well as the somewhat slower pace, I think it lends itself to a more civil and productive conversation.

I was raised in a family where interrupting someone was as unacceptable as blowing your nose on the living room drapes, so it's my gut reaction to get tense and indignant when someone cuts me off (all the more when it happens repeatedly). Robert handled that better than I would, for sure.

It underscores the fact that there were two different conversations going on-- Alan wanted sound-bite answers; Robert was offering a level of depth that takes more time... that's why you invite a scholar, right?

I guess Alan knew he couldn't win on the merits of his ideas, so he had to try to interrupt and rattle his guest.

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 28, 2005 11:54 PM

Imagine if someone was asking you questions and everytime you attempted to answer, the person asking steps on your responce, this is standard practice for Alan Colmes if he doesn't agree with your position.

Posted by: Mackie at December 29, 2005 12:08 AM

Alan is an ass. How did I do? I called in the show and got through...

-Sean

Posted by: Avatar at December 29, 2005 12:22 AM

Remember that ALOT of liberals relieve themselves of their "self appointed" guilt by defending anyone,no matter their cause, crime ,or evil plan,simply to make themelves "feel" better.

In essence,they are,(in there over-anaylsis mindset),championing the "less" fortunate etc.

The conscious reality that this very mindset could contribute to the very dangers they say they wish to prevent is disturbing to say the least.One could say that, it may perhaps ,be a form of mental ilness....

Posted by: leviticus at December 29, 2005 12:24 AM

Now is it alright take my ear plugs off now? That was one action packed interview. Lots of yelling on the program tonight. Too bad Sean Hannity wasn't also there to help put Colmes in his place.

Dr. Spencer: I called the program and was waiting and waiting to go live on the air to support you. But they never took my call from Seattle. Yes, it was like a "snake pit" tonight. Now, you can put away your Indian Jones whip.

That last caller, who was a Muslim woman, made some outrageous comparisons in stating that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist and Christianity has its own share of terrorists. Alan Colmes agreed with every word this confused Muslim made on the air. He is no intellectual.

Alan Colmes embodies the heart of political correctness and extreme left leaning liberal ideology. He also has pathetic way of riling up the guests whom he disagrees with on the air.

You made some good points tonight. Thanks for rising to the challenge and speaking on the Colmes Show. I only wish that Colmes would have given you some more time to develop your ideas and thoughts. You would put him to shame in an open debate.

Posted by: Johnathan at December 29, 2005 12:36 AM

Congrats... but are you in the right topic thread?

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 29, 2005 1:37 AM

l am sorry to have missed the interview, would of been disgusted though at Colmes interuptions to say the least! you cannot debate with liberals, they ignore facts, are too emotional about issues. its their way of thinking, what ever feels good.
l would love it if you were on Sean hannity's show. l know he is prol a not as zealous about the truth, but can be lead with facts by a person like Robert.
here is hoping for that interview! but glad you are getting out there anyhow!

Posted by: Lulu at December 29, 2005 3:35 AM

I would reccomend to Robert that he not go do another debate with Colmes. He lost the debate despite being correct, and despite having truth on his side. What that tells me is that he had no clue how to win an argument and should do interviews rather then argue with the other side.

I am not saying this as an insult, not everyone is a good debater, but Colmes really did shred Robert to pieces, like a good prosecuter tearing apart a stupid hostile witness who isn't prepared for cross examination.

Posted by: Druze at December 29, 2005 4:20 AM

Apologies for this entry being a bit off topic, but it is my initiation to this site and my introduction.
I have been well...not a lurker, but an ardent "devourer" of knowledge on this site for a few months. It has enlightened me and it is my daily bread now! Thank you for it! Its link is now in my signature whenever I enter comments at Polish sites and I hope it will draw more readers to the invaluable source of wisdom on JW/DW.
I come from the country that centuries ago prided itself on being the "Wall of Christianity" - protecting it from the East against Tatar and Turkish hordes. Sadly it might be the case that Poland will become such a wall again - this time from the other side! The Battle of Vienna took place on the 11th of September (1683) - the date so meaningful again since 9/11. Was it a coincidence? Are there any Poles lurking here?
I would like to say hello to all Brits (I live in London now) visiting this site and invite them to stand up for Israel on the 5th of January:

http://www.anglicansforisrael.com/docs/2005/12/21/iranian-embassy-vigil/#more-190

A Happy New Year to Everybody!

Posted by: Polish infideless at December 29, 2005 5:06 AM

Ha, another reader of Anglicans for Israel!
Nice one. Happy New Year to you too.
:-)

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at December 29, 2005 5:29 AM

Polish Infideless,

I've bookmarked your link and hope the British press covers the event.

Such an event will heighten public awareness of the Islamic mindset(if 7/7 wasn't enough), especially if they are protested by loud Muslims (like the 'Hook', say).

Good luck.

Posted by: PRCS at December 29, 2005 5:31 AM

Well, you have to understand that the real point of the interview wasn't to convince Alan of anything, but to actually get heard and reach out to people who can, in fact, change their minds when exposed to the facts. And this being the radio, and Mr. Spencer being an outstanding and intelligent individual, I think we can safly say that the goal was, more or less, reached. Nobody, including Mr. Spencer, could realisticly expect to win the argument against Alan. But did he won the mind of a few americans? I dont know, but probably.

Secondly, the more I read comments made by individuals in this site, the more I'm starting to realise there is some sort of divide between Left wing and Right wing ideologies. I mean, a lot of people here dont seem to like liberals at all. And I dont understand that. The issue here, the whole purpose of this site, is to find out if Islam is compatible or not with Western societies. And this is a gigantic, fundamental issue.
Of course, I admit that the political correctness that stifle the Left is a large problem when trying to deal with this issue, but the Right has many problem of its own, way to much to single out the Left as completly blind or impotent to get up and act against Islam, if need be.

In my opinion, mainstream, un-westernized Islam is a threat to our fundamental values of social liberalism and individual rights, which are the only things left that distinguish the West from the rest. And those values are equaly shared (but differently understood) by both the Left and the Right, and it doesn't make an ounce of sens that they couldn't agree over the reality of this issue that threaten them.
As such, knowing this, if a right-wing individual can't convince a liberal that un-westernized Islam is a threat to our society, it isn't because the liberal is thoughtless or desultory. No, they both believe in the same fundamental concepts. In the end, its probably because the right-wing individual doesn't have enough proof or he isn't a good enough debater. Liberals may be what they are, but unless they're on the radio, they wouldn't disagree with the information presented on this site. As such, its your job to go around and spread it as best as you can. And when you'll face disbelief, adversity and even contempt and insults, dont blame them, and certainly dont hate them. Just take a look at yourself, think about the message you tired to convey, and come back again and say it in an improved manner.

Finaly, when I started this message, I said to myself "make it short, its 5:20 am". I had no idea I would disgree over left and right ideology. I just hope I wasnt too irrelevant. Goodnight.

BTW, we need a freaking forum around here, if we want to discuss these things!

Posted by: Elliot at December 29, 2005 5:42 AM

Elliot,

I don't believe there is such a thing as Westernized Islam, but rather there are Western Muslims who don't follow Islamic ideology to the letter.

Such Muslims do, most likely, know what the Qur'an says (not all can read), but are apparently willing to overlook the hate and Jihad stuff.

I'm not sure how they reconcile that.

Posted by: PRCS at December 29, 2005 6:16 AM

Elliot mentions: As such, knowing this, if a right-wing individual can't convince a liberal that un-westernized Islam is a threat to our society, it isn't because the liberal is thoughtless or desultory. No, they both believe in the same fundamental concepts. In the end, its probably because the right-wing individual doesn't have enough proof or he isn't a good enough debater.

Unfortunately, from my experience with liberals (like Colmes) it is precisely the case that most are thoughtless or desultry. It should be blindingly clear to any person, whether liberal or not, that Islam is the complete antithesis of the supposedly liberal values of freedom and equality. And yet, instead of attacking the vicious ideology of Islam, the liberals show their impotency by continuing to harangue anyone who tries to seriously take on Islamic ideology. If 9-11 cannot convince these idiots about the seriousness of the threat from Islam, I'm afraid no amount of polished arguments in debate will help.

Posted by: Razdan at December 29, 2005 7:57 AM

Dear Granny Weatherwax!
I am a great fun of your comments here. Actually I think it was you who have introduced me to www.anglicansforisrael site - thank you!
I hope to meet you on the 5th? Will I recognise you by your silver hair (just a joke - this is in fact my trade mark, which I hide with ...hair dyes!)?
PRCS - I should hope this event will be noticed
by the British media (though I am not so sure after discovering how many top positions in BBC and Channel4, not to mention "Muslim Daily" (The Guardian)are in teh hands of Muslim editors!).
And to close this subject I have just handed me my "resignation" from the membership in Amnesty International (in which cause I wholeheartedly believed for many years of collecting donations from house to house), after being sent a leaflet full of lies about the Israeli fence. No donations. No never, no more!
Regards,

Here is the Polish equivalent of JW:

http://www.eurojihad.org/

Posted by: Polish infideless at December 29, 2005 8:19 AM

Elliot,
The hard truth dos'nt matter anymore. Pragmatism rules. On both sides. Opposition is simply a means to an end, it is entirely the reason for being.

Washington's Farewell Address 1796-

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

Posted by: kentim at December 29, 2005 8:38 AM

Elliot wrote:

"the more I'm starting to realise there is some sort of divide between Left wing and Right wing ideologies. I mean, a lot of people here dont seem to like liberals at all. And I dont understand that."

That's why I like to distinguish between Leftist and Liberal.

The Leftist is a Liberal who has, through a complex socio-historical process over the last couple of centuries, perverted liberalism to the point where now (cf. Yvonne Ridley, et al.) whitewashing or even defending Islam -- while blaming the West for all ills -- is de rigueur.

If the millions of PC Leftists in the West would only rediscover the liberalism of their tradition, they would find the condemnation of Islam to be a no-brainer. But they can't do so, because they hate their West too much to admit that the Judaeo-Christian Christendom and then the Western Imperialism after that gave birth to and nurtured Liberalism; and they find (consciously or semi-consciously) that the Muslims share most of their anti-Western arguments.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 29, 2005 10:45 AM

Polish infideless
I have sufficient notice to try to change my existing commitments for the 5th. If I succeed I will try to catch a post of yours nearer the day.
Meanwhile I note the commitment of the Polish armed forces to the stabilisation of Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4562838.stm

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at December 29, 2005 10:57 AM

Dr. Pepper:

Well put. It is much easier for a left thinking person to connect to liberal Ideology thinking than those of us with conservative thought.

Liberal thinking varies from country to country. For instance Australian liberals are much more conservative in their thinking than British, or American liberals. And the French liberals; God help us!

Posted by: Mackie at December 29, 2005 11:00 AM

Many mosques are hotbeds of Islamism, sworn to our destruction and funded by Saudi. Something besides freedom of religion is in play here.

Posted by: WatchfulEye at December 29, 2005 11:49 AM

Because Colmes is a public figure, it's not so much that he does not want to hear the truth, He does not want his audience to hear it. His public is made of primarilly liberal fanatics. He has to cater to them by defending the smallest point to an inth degree. As a leader in the religion of liberalism, and a talk show host, he has to keep the issues confused enough to lean them to the side of liberal loonies. In other words, he cant afford to loose an argument with any liberal opposing ideas or people. In this panicky process, all niceties are abandoned and replaced with rapid fire BS. Manners, respect for the guest, and especially the facts, are thrown out. Whats left is Alan Colmes, who has not a twit of knowledge of the subject. And a loud and obnoxious Colmes at that...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 29, 2005 11:51 AM

I've mentioned this before,but around 2 1/2 years ago I listened to an interview on KABC radio Los Angeles that was being conducted by the "Sage from South LA" Larry Elder. That interview was so cativating that Larry kept it going way beyond the original alotted time, I believe it ran for at least an hour.

The person Larry was interviewing was none other than are one and only Robert Spencer. Larry was a complete gentleman with Robert and he himself was fascinated by the subject of Islam as Robert protrayed it. It was this interview that brought me to Robert's site.

When I compare that interview that was Given by Colmes last night, well quite frankly it was an insulting joke compared to the thoughtful interest that was portrayed in the Larry Elder interview of Robert.

Posted by: Mackie at December 29, 2005 12:06 PM

You can forward your comments to Alan Colmes on his fine debating skills : alan@alan.com

http://www.alan.com

"If you wont let your guest complete one sentence does that mean that you are are afraid of what his answer will be? Are you afraid that you will not be able to respond to an intelligent answer?"

Posted by: Roland at December 29, 2005 12:21 PM

Dear Granny Weatherwax,
Not sure how I can establish contact - perhaps I will carry a placard saying "Desperately seeking Granny"...As to our involvement in Iraq I have very mixed feelings. I do agree (now) with Oriana The Great - democracy is not a chocolate bar - one has to fight for it in order to appreciate it as with everything else in life, which is not "easy come easy go" (ok, I should stop preaching, I can't help being a mother).
We are just helping to create another Islamic "republic" there ...do we really want to facilitate it?
Has history taught us (Poles) something? Perhaps only one thing - that after all we are better off sticking to America than to Europe - vide WWII...and its aftermath. This is what we are desperately hanging on to...No country is a lonely island...

Posted by: Polish infideless at December 29, 2005 12:43 PM

Dr. P. and Sheik--

Reminds me of the discussion of "Illiberal Liberalism" in Brian C. Anderson's South Park Conservatives. It deals with the semantics of the fact that we live in "liberal democracies" by definition, but that there have arisen those on the left who take the mantle of "Liberal," but seek to silence and eliminate anyone who opposes their vision of 1.) tolerance for absolutely everything 2.) blaming the West-- and Whitey-- for all the world's ills, and 3.) marketing themselves as the pinnacle of "progress" in Western civilization. Sure sounds a lot like Western dhimmitude.

The "South Park" aspect of the title deals with how irreverent humor has become one of the chief weapons in dismantling that self-congratulating house of cards, noting that just as the traditional hallmarks of "liberalism" have changes, many are not so much traditionally conservative (which would not condone the creation of Eric Cartman, for example) as anti-liberal. It also mentions Little Green Footballs in its chapter on blogs... can't find the specific page offhand to see if it mentions JihadWatch, too...

But I highly recommend it. Read it on a plane, and you'll get lots of funny looks!

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 29, 2005 12:47 PM

I did not hear the show, but a suggestion for those writing in protest to Colmes' interruptions and behavior.

Conflict drives ratings in talk radio. Every scriptwriter, every producer, looks for conflict first and foremost to generate entertainment in TV, film, and radio. Colmes, and all radio hosts and broadcasters, know this; generating conflict was surely the purpose of inviting Spencer on the program not the desire to debate and air out arguments on each side.

So, in protest to this kind of thing one should not show that one has been stimulated or excited by it all one way or the other. Just say, in very plain, non-emotional terms, that you will not listen to his show again, or, better still, watch Hannity and Colmes on television. That might get someone's attention, if there are enough e-mails.

This will not change minds, of course, but perhaps Colmes and the talk show producers that thought this up, will think twice before choosing a topic like this for a one-sided screaming match, that is, talk show debate.

This topic deserves better Alan Colmes. Millions of lives are at stake and the risk is very, very real, something I hope the likes of Alan Colmes and others, who feel that entertainment takes precedence over study, purdence, and careful thought, never come to know through experience.

Avoiding needless suffering is the purpose of prudence, and the demand for prudence should escalate with the risk and degree of human suffering. Colmes, and all of us, cannot afford irresponsibility on this issue. I simply do not understand how folks can miss that, but they do.

Posted by: JTF at December 29, 2005 2:26 PM

Dr. Pepper wrote:

"That's why I like to distinguish between Leftist and Liberal.

The Leftist is a Liberal who has, through a complex socio-historical process over the last couple of centuries, perverted liberalism to the point where now (cf. Yvonne Ridley, et al.) whitewashing or even defending Islam -- while blaming the West for all ills -- is de rigueur."

Ah, I know the leftists you're talking about. They're especially numerous at my university, and I think you've got a name for them in english. Its "pinko", or something. But hey, I really dont think they're serious or pertinent enough even to be considered here. When I talk about the Left, or liberals, I'm certainly not representing them.

I have to admit that the political left always was, and will always be reluctant to single out Islam, or any minorities, as a threat. And you know why? Becauce when you're asking a liberal to do so, you're asking them to admit that the philosophy of social liberalism on which the concept of paramount individual rights, individual equality and, per extention, on which 50 years of multiculturalism is based, need to be reformulated, updated, changed, and, worst of all, that social liberalism, the core of western uniqueness, need to abandon its universal pretention. You're asking for a terribly cruel and painful psychological restructuring, and you're asking to admit that all those westernized muslims who have succesfully integrated into our societies are, for some reason, the exception to a rule that worked for 200 years of successful immigration and integration in America.

And finaly, you're asking the left to believe that, the miracle europeans accomplished with Christianity over the centuries, it cannot do with Islam. It took a while for Christianity to become the tolerant church that it is today. But it would have never happened would Christianity toke roots in another region than Europe. Jesus may have said show the other cheek when hit, he may have said love your ennemies, but it toke many centuries of social progress to actualy make it a reality in any country. Can the same be done with Islam? The evidence against it are pilling up, but in the end, I'm not ready to say a definitive yes or no.

I am not saying that you or them are right or wrong, I'm just saying that please, at least understand what sacrifice you're asking liberals to commit, by admiting that muslims cannot be integrated, like, you know, every other god damn culture on this planet was in Europe and America since 200 years.
Its sad to say, but its going to take more bombed sky-scrappers, more kamikazes in crowds, more muslims gangs yelling "Allah Akbar" in Paris, more western woman gang raped, more race riots and more atrocities here at home in general to be commited for the left to admit that Mr. Spencer is, perhapes, maybe, just maybe, on to something.

Posted by: Elliot at December 29, 2005 5:46 PM

Yeah, you're right Elliot, that's what happens when a person wraps up their whole IDENTITY into an ideology or party.
Their brain becomes a prisoner to that ideology. Right or wrong. Truth or lie.

Posted by: kentim at December 29, 2005 7:47 PM

Indeed Kentim. There's too much at stake for the political left for them to readily admit that there's something wrong with their system.

But since the left takes root in the same philosophical source, and if that source is really threatened by this so called jihad, well then, it shouldn't be impossible to convince them, asuming you have the proof to back you up.

Posted by: Elliot at December 29, 2005 8:15 PM

"Are you for real? Go a f*#k yourself!

'A good prosecutor...?'

This (Alan Colmes) guy is a brain-dead A-sole who shouts without listening, what's there to be gained? If I was in Robert's shoes, I would have simply asked: "Would you kindly give me a chance to say anything at all or is it your intention to shout louder than me? If this is your intention then we can make an end to it, right here and now..." In this case it is better not to continue the BS.

But 'winning?' What do you call winning in such a situation? This Alan-guy is a loser for all time, a brain=dead moron-radio-jock, coming right on you and at you, gagagagaga, but nothing more.

And since I haven't seen you post here before I suspect you are a Mohammedan troll who tries to rub salt into an open sore.

Go and find yourself a hole and shack up with OBL..."

Is this selective reader for real?

I said in my post that agree with Robert. I just think that any onlooker without any real views on the subject would agree that Colmes won the debate. Winning a debate doesn't mean that you are right.

However on the topic of what does winning mean, yes being louder and being able to hold your own against a barrage of attacks while not being to loud and agressive is a very important skill for any debater.

You mentioned something that Robert could have done, that he could have demanded the right to be given time to answer a question without being yelled at before he finished, but he didn't.

Also I find it funny that you accuse me of being a Mohhamedan when your name is Prince of the Faithful (Rough translation of shiek from Arabic).

Druze are not Muslims, we don't even accept voluntary converts, let alone try to conquer the world.

Posted by: Druze at December 29, 2005 10:44 PM

As for Colmes, while he may not be too bright, one thing I do admire about him is that unlike most Liberals, he debates the issues, rather then resort to personal attacks. That is the good thing about him. That said, if I was a Liberal and wanted a good debater, I'd rather have Neal Gabler on this program, and have Colmes on Fox News Watch.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 28, 2005 11:33 PM

ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL LMAO

Posted by: Catherine at December 30, 2005 12:58 AM

I find this rather puzzling: actually I had thought it went rather well. I knew Colmes was not going to let me talk, and I tried to get in as much as I could.

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing impressions from others who heard the show. I'm always looking to improve my presentation. I don't want to serve as the Washington Generals (the team that lived only to lose to the Harlem Globetrotters) for Colmes or anyone, so if it was a really bad show, I need to know it. I have already received some emails about it but they are conflicting. Let me know what you think.

Many thanks
RS

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 30, 2005 10:53 AM

Kentim & Elliot:

I believe that your statements that their "brain becomes a prisoner to that ideology. Right or wrong. Truth or lie" and that there´s "too much at stake for the political left for them to readily admit that there's something wrong with their system" all boil down to the psychological phenomenon known as Cognitive Dissonance, which is the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what one already knows or believes, and new information or interpretation.

So when they are called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Thus no facts or logic will make much of a dent in the thinking of a person who holds a strong (if not religious) belief in a concept such as multiculturalism, even up to and including the moment that a jihadist has a knife at his throat.

Posted by: Don Miguel at December 30, 2005 9:31 PM

Hi Don Miguel, right you are.

http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
The Belief-Disconfirmation Paradigm

"Dissonance is aroused when people are exposed to information inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can lead to misperception or misinterpretation of the information, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from those who agree with one's belief, and attempting to persuade others to accept one's belief."
---------------------------

It can be induced and used offensively as well, and for less than nice reasons.
Most of us here probably have suffered from it because of the public institutional proclamations about islam(and a whole lot of other things). It is a struggle to resist.

Those who CONTROL information can in effect "create" reality-- virtual reality.

Posted by: kentim at December 30, 2005 11:18 PM