OT but also on topic.

Surely my fellow watchers here must weep for my country Canada who just awarded 10 million dollars to a sunni muslim called Arar, and accepted the resignation of a fine head of the national police force (R.C.M.P.), and submitted to the payment of jyzyah.

This could only happen when there is general ignorance and stupidity about the nature of islam, which ignorance and stupidity in itself can kill us.

Poor Mr. Arar must be both laughing up his sleeve while he publicly cries all the way to the bank.

A pity and a shame.

Posted by: dgene at January 28, 2007 8:14 PM

Robert-

Fitzgerald, though he obviously disagrees with D'souza, wrote in a post that he thinks D'souza is without any cunning, a sincere man. (I think he said that as a reflection upon an interview D'souza had on NPR.) In any case, disagreements in politics are not usually a big deal, it's deception that is impossible to deal with for truth-seekers. God be with both of you in getting at the truth.

Posted by: Frank at January 28, 2007 8:50 PM

Give us a link, dgene. Why did this happen?

Posted by: localmalcontent at January 28, 2007 8:52 PM

Dinesh been fighting liberals for so long that hes trying to recruit "traditional" Muslims to join him in the fight and use the 9/11 attack to bolster his case. After his previous books, I would never have guessed him to become a dhimmi.

I also don't think he was quite prepared to be primarily attacked from the right(not that Spencer identifies himself as right, but there isn't exactly a large anti-jihadist movement on the left). I think D'Souza was expecting to be debating leftists who think U.S. foreign policy is evil. But as anyone who follows Spencer's work knows, when the left sees a book that is doesn't like, it just ignores it and dismisses its author as a hater. So as usual the rational debate is isolated to the right and now hes' forced to defend Islam and attack judeo/christian texts.

I'm not sure the book is as "damaging" as Spencer says it is. I think any call for a reexamination of 9/11's root causes will inevitably lead some to the real truth about Islam.

Posted by: Charles the Hammer at January 28, 2007 8:59 PM

Is the debate still on? The host hasn't mentioned Robert once.

Posted by: Hubert the Friar at January 28, 2007 10:13 PM

fight, fight, fight

Posted by: wrathofasma at January 28, 2007 10:13 PM

oh yea, its on.

Posted by: Charles the Hammer at January 28, 2007 10:17 PM

Arar, born in Syria, and a Cdn. citizen, was taken off a U.S. flight and shipped to Syria where he received rough treatment for a year, and it is claimed that the Canuck authorities were agreeable and complicit in allowing or not preventing this from happening,

It was alleged that Arar had some 'radical ' connections (he is still on the U.S. 'no fly' list).

The Canuck govt. caved to Arar's lawyers.

Google 'Arar' for the story.

So a Sunni muslim walks with 10 mil. Cdn. smackeroos, and few in Canada understand how and why.

Is this a great country or what.

Posted by: dgene at January 28, 2007 10:20 PM

Wow, the debate is really rocking and rolling tonight!

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 28, 2007 10:31 PM

Wow, the debate is really rocking and rolling tonight!

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 28, 2007 10:31 PM

HAHAHAHA Dinesh keeps bringing up Christianity. I swear this man needs to study the subjects before he tries to argue against them.

Posted by: jawknee at January 28, 2007 10:31 PM

D'Souza is clueless...there is nothing more frustrating than willfull ignorance.

Posted by: Hubert the Friar at January 28, 2007 10:31 PM

I find the Christian analogy to be incredibly stupid, offensive, and illogical---even more revealing---something that is always done by those on the LEFT.

If someone quoted the Old Testament as a basis for murder (hard to do with the 10 Commandments and all) and someone used the text to slam all Christians, I would argue with the slammer and call the police on the murderer. The slammer is NOT going to make me become a murderer.

Posted by: JSobieski at January 28, 2007 10:34 PM

Robert is demoishing D'Nish bigtime!

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 28, 2007 10:36 PM

I can agree with some of Dinesh's points. But he continues to ignore the main issue. Yes the Left in America and Europe are depraved, but no other religion in the world preaches intolerance like Islam. He keeps comparing Christianity and the Bible to Islam. Get a clue Dinesh!

Posted by: jawknee at January 28, 2007 10:36 PM

Gold?

Buy more gold?

Posted by: november1981 at January 28, 2007 10:37 PM

What the ... Hold on, Mr D'Sousa, Mr. Spencer, while we get the view from one of our sponsors, here's the Mattress King...and his take on the rise of Islam...

WTF??

Posted by: localmalcontent at January 28, 2007 10:38 PM

Lame!

Posted by: jawknee at January 28, 2007 10:39 PM

Does everyone have Gold in their investments??

:)

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 28, 2007 10:41 PM

Dinesh's sources are liers! Christianity less tolerant then Islam?

Posted by: jawknee at January 28, 2007 10:42 PM

D'nesh sounds rude and irrational. He is scared. I'd love to see/hear a re-match in more traditonal debate format, perhaps in the old Firing Line format.

Thanks for the serving of Cream of D'nesh Soup Robert.

Posted by: MarcH at January 28, 2007 10:43 PM

Fight! Fight! Kick his ass Robert! D'Souza is a punk!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 28, 2007 10:47 PM

Lot's of applause for the commands that radical Christians were more dangerous than radical islam.

However, its sounds like most listeners responding via email see the comparison between islam and Christianity as ridiculous.

I don't think it was Mr. Spencer who had the "fit."

Therefore, Spencer won this one -- good job!

Posted by: witness at January 28, 2007 10:53 PM

Thank-you Robert for standing up for the truth.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 28, 2007 10:54 PM

If the Muslims seem sculpure is immoral, then are we going to destroy our own art so that Mainstream Muslims won't think we are immoral? Otherwise, our immorality will cause another 9/11.

D'Souza's strategy is immediate Dhimmitude---I would rather take my chances in a struggle.

Posted by: JSobieski at January 28, 2007 10:55 PM

The truth is that the pratice of jihad goes back to 632 AD.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 28, 2007 10:57 PM

am listening.

it is true (after all) that the american export of cultural libertinism is not helpful in the war on terrorism. i assume that spencer would agree on that point. and now, he arrives...

spencer says that he didn't pick and choose Koranic passages; the Islamic extremists do.

d'souza says there's little tradition of islamic terrorism before 25 years ago. spencer speaks of 1350 years of imperialism. d'souza talks of relying on reputable historians and notes that islam has been crippled since 1683.

[ are those of us who see a continuation of imperialism responding to reality or to our feelings? is 330 years a long time in history? the question answers itself. ]

d'souza agrees that islam has always discriminated. they didn't kill all the hindus, did they?

spencer says that while there was a time that christianity was quite intolerant, most jews were in christian lands. we must be able to criticize islam.

d'souza says that large numbers of muslims live in democratic nations. you are implying that all are disguised muslims.

spencer says most folks want to live out their lives. no doubt that many are cultural muslim, uninterested in jihad. but they are constantly recruited.

d'souza says that spencer thinks that many are recruited by ideology, but in truth most are recruited because of the appeal of islamic radicals who say that the west is an instrument of global decadence. [ d'souza makes sense here, IMO. ]

spencer mentions the grand mufti's fatwa against sculpture. d'souza says, so what?

spencer says that we can't confront the madrassas without providing ideological justification for reform.

d'souza says we should show decency; that is, more conservative values. he denies trying to silence spencer.

[ d'souza may have made foolish statements in the book, but ought not be attacked in the middle of a conversation in which he seems not to be repeating those statements. is his a jimmy carter duplicity? does not sound so to me. we should save our most impassioned fire for the enemy. ]

Posted by: StillBreathing at January 28, 2007 10:58 PM

Wow, a little more hostile than I thought it would be. I guess I should have seen it comming after D'Souza blamed Spencer.

Posted by: Charles the Hammer at January 28, 2007 11:01 PM

Yikes, the host was a disaster. Also, my favorite part of the discussion: D'Souza yelling Robert, you won't let me speak; this after D'Souza had the first 25 minutes to himself with Spencer trying to complete a point a good three minutes into the debate.

For D'Souza to keep saying that jihadist terrorism is a recent development "in the form we know today" or words to that effect is just embarrassing.

Posted by: Chris Fotos at January 28, 2007 11:06 PM

Dam I can't wait for a real debate in person. D'Souza does not debate but instead uses the christian strawman again and personal attacks!

Epileptic! Hahahahahahahaha!

Talk about trying to distract from the truth!

D'Souza is a fool but a loud fool!

In a personal live debate with both Spencer and D'Souza in the same room....Spencer wins hands down. Then I want Spencer to kick has ass for real and throw him off the stage. What a loud and arrogant fool! It never really had a chance to be the kind of debate becuase of the impersonal phone connection. Also D'Souza is a bully and punk who needs to be knocked down a few pegs.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 28, 2007 11:12 PM

I'd say Robert KO'd D'nish sometime in the 2d round.

Dnish clings to Bernard Lewis like a ship-wrecked sailor to a piece of driftwood.

Posted by: MarcH at January 28, 2007 11:14 PM

Dinesh D'Souza: Cooked in an earthen oven like tandoori chicken.

The point is we will be seen as decadent even if we were the most pious people on earth. To muslims, the kaffirs are always the enemy.

Now go away D'Souza, before Spencer starts peppering you with chili powder, and let me tell you, it hurts.

Posted by: wrathofasma at January 28, 2007 11:18 PM

....and the winner is .. Robert spencer. even Laura agrees that Dinesh is wrong on many accounts.
I agree with dinesh on only one point, that the libs , through their stupid short sighted policies, have enabled muslim extremists to succeed in causing global terror. But it's not because of their decadance behavior. Otherwise Dinesh has exposed his simplistic reasoning about islam and muslims. The most stunning error he made is telling us how wonderful it was for the moguls rule in india, and how tolerant of them to let the hindus live. maybe he should tell the american blacks to be appreciative of the tolerance and love of the slave owners for letting their black slaves live. sheesh! this guy needs a good history lesson. I am so dissaponted in a fellow indian.

Posted by: desidude at January 28, 2007 11:27 PM

Can someone explain how traditonal moral Christians are going to get along with "traditional Muslims"?

Magic?? Perhaps...just wondering what all the tradional christians think about this pending love fest D'Souza keeps talking about. This convergence of values....

:)

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 28, 2007 11:32 PM

BTW: D'Souza is a Atheophobe!

I am not an Atheist but somehow I doubt we will see riots in street and children being killed in schools by angry Atheist on the rampage!

Robert maybe you should change your site to "Atheist Watch" and we can follow the "real problem" causing terror.

Or you can change it to "Bad Girl Watch" that way we expose all the bad girls on earth and thus end terror!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 28, 2007 11:39 PM

There's no question that Spencer's positions win completely.

But the format of the show - the length of time to talk - seemed to undermine him. He needed more talk time to express his positions on such a show. They didn't get out, at least not in their full power, or even close, I thought.

It's like this format requires fast short points. Quips, if you will. Points that are on the offensive, and real fast. Instant points with instant impact. Like the audience has ADHD and won't follow a longer discourse. (Almost.)

Like:
"Mr. D'Sousa favors dhimmitude - we should change ourselves to accomodate Islam, else we 'cause' 9/11s. Got that? Everyone ready to change? "

"We didn't cause 9/11 - Jihadis did. Because Islam required it. Killing Kuffars is an act of piety [and read chapter and verse or tell a story about big Mo. or modern Imams' rants]."

Like the articles here on JW, BUT faster punches. There's no time to develop the comprehensive treatment that I so admire and enjoy in your books and articles. This medium (a short audio debate) doesn't play to the strength of comprehensive correctness on points so much as quick quipy impacts.

Lastly, Spencer could use a GOOD telephone microphone for radio calls. His voice was a little distorted, unlike D'Sousa's, and it does matter. I think te host mentioned this because she was also conscious of the distortion.

It was a good show nonetheless. Thank you for waging this fight so powerfully everyday. You are the clearest voice anywhere on this, the most important matter in the world today. Thank you.

Posted by: WestwardHo at January 29, 2007 12:13 AM

Do we really want friends that can be 'radicalized' by our free speech?? As the saying goes, "with friends like that who needs enemies?"

Posted by: Charles the Hammer at January 29, 2007 12:40 AM

Any links where I can hear the recording? Or any transcripts or summaries?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 29, 2007 1:27 AM

http://www.justawoman.com/

Front page, listen to the show.

Posted by: loler at January 29, 2007 2:33 AM

Oh, and that was really confusing.

Posted by: loler at January 29, 2007 3:11 AM

http://www.justawoman.com/

Front page, listen to the show.
Posted by: loler

Hey, Thanks for the link. I was unable to play it from the other one. I use a Mac.

When Dinesh said that Christians wouldn't respond well if certain among the fiath were accused of terrorism I couldn't help but think well what about Martin Luther King. He held Christians to the Bible.

He used the moral authority of the Bible to reach the conscience of a Nation.

Can't say the same thing about islam.

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 29, 2007 3:39 AM

faith

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 29, 2007 3:57 AM

Loler, thanks.

Robert

Heard the interview. You did well, but I do think you did more interrupting than did Dinesh. That said, you would also have done well to ask how the traditionalist Muslim practices like honor killings, polygamy, triple-talaq-divorces, wife-beating, et al would have squared with his claim about Muslim traditionalists being appalled by the moral depravity in the West. It would have hit home the point better than the ban on sculptures by the grand mufti of Egypt.

I also thought that as an Egyptian Christian, Lores should have confronted Dinesh more - after all, do the Copts have their Larry Flynts, the Maronites their Paris Hiltons?

Also, D'Souza quoted 200m Muslims as India's Muslim population - my, don't they seem to grow? As for his analogy to his mom in Mumbai thinking Hollywood movies reflect real America, maybe we should conclude that she leads a life similar to Lara Dutta - a Bollywood equivalent of Sharon Stone (but of the same age group as Britney Spears). after seeing one such movie.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 29, 2007 4:01 AM

Aside from the fact that Dinesh seems totally uninformed about both Islam and Christianity, I felt that he came across as a very wishy-washy person during the debate. Dinesh kept saying that he doesn't disagree that there is a need to question Islam; and yet kept making the argument that criticizing Islam is counter-productive. I believe Robert was right to throw an apoplectic fit when Dinesh said 'who cares about statues' after Robert made the point that the Grand Mufti of Egypt (who Dinesh had posited as an example of Islamic leaders we should align with) had issued a fatwa against sculpturing.

In essence Dinesh says that we (i.e. the right) should join hands with the muslims who agree with him that the liberal west is immoral. So what next! Does he believe that we should introduce a moral police here that makes a judgment about what should or shouldn't be allowed within the USA? All that Dinesh's writing does is completely polarize the USA into two camps who have more distrust and unease with each other than they do over Islam.. which is our real enemy. It is no wonder that Dinesh's writing has received a lot of publicity within the liberal press (the Washington Post, for example, had a big article by him). It completely plays into the fears of the right that the left would like to force a puritanical religious moral system on the rest of us.

Posted by: Razdan at January 29, 2007 6:26 AM

The more Muslims, the more they genocide the Christians. So allying with them is a fallacy.

Christian Cleansing Chart

London Times Stephen Farrell, Jerusalem and Rana Sabbagh Gargour, Amman

Christian Cleansing Chart data.
Percentage of Christians in Muslim lands. Turkey 1923 15 percent, Now 1 percent

Syria 1920 33 percent, Now 10 percent

Iraq 1970 5.8 percent, Now 2.65 percent

Jerusalem 1922 53 percent, Now 2 percent

Bethlehem 1948 85 percent, Now 12 percent

9-11 was a pogrom of Christians and Jews.

Source London Times. All my staff at the church have been killed - they disappeared Stephen Farrell, Jerusalem and Rana Sabbagh Gargour, Amman Times Online December 23, 2006.

The greater the Muslim population, the more genocide they do.

Bottom of page discussion genocide in Turkey

Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 29, 2007 8:12 AM

All Holocausts of Infidels are But One.

By Andrew G. Bostom

FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2004

Adams on Jihad War, Dhimmitude, and the Muslim View of Non-Muslims; Examples of the Perfidy of Muslim States, Including the Ottoman Turkish State quote

“[More from the Ottoman Sultan’s pronouncement to his subjects]...‘all infidels are but one nation…This war must be considered purely a religious and national war. Let all the faithful, rich or poor, great or little, know, that to fight is a duty with us; let them then refrain from thinking of arrears, or of pay of any kind; far from such considerations, let us sacrifice our property and our persons; let us execute zealously the duties which the honor of Islamism imposes on us – let us unite our efforts, and labor, body and soul, for the support of religion, until the day of judgement. Mussulmen have no other means of working out salvation in this world and the next.’” end quote.

The Sultan was ruler of the Ottoman Empire, which was part of the genocide of Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Armenian genocide, aka Christian genocide, included incidents in the 1890's of hundreds of thousands being killed.

Info on Armenian Genocide including links to sources

Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 29, 2007 8:16 AM

I am listening to the debate. Dinesh talks too much, and it is obvious that the loon does not know anything about islam.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 29, 2007 8:17 AM

Dinesh is simply living in deniel. Robert is simply telling the truth.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 29, 2007 8:53 AM

Just finished listening to The Debate (a tape from last night, thanks for posting the link).

Mr. Spencer clearly wins on points. ( I agree with the emailer to the Rizkalla program who suggested RS get a better cell phone. RS sounded distant and not always as distinct as I would've liked. Apparently some of the posters above agree.)

I, too, hope this debate is merely the first of more to come between these two respected authors. It makes for great radio.

Would that these gentlemen had more time to argue their respective points. Too much precious "air time" was lost talking over one another or past one another.

I'm writing to a local Clear Channel radio station requesting the host to invite both DD and RS to come onto his program to debate the premises of DD's book. I've heard both RS and DD promoting their books on this program in the past. I'll suggest they be given at least an hour to debate. Whether anything comes of this suggestion remains to be seen.

Posted by: omvi at January 29, 2007 1:08 PM

Dinesh's sources are liers! Christianity less tolerant then Islam?.....

What Dinesh mentioned were the days when the Catholic Church murdered Jews, non-Catholic Christians and Muslims.

What I dislike is that although this was sanctioned by the Pope of that day, ALL Christians, even those who are not Catholics are tarred with the same brush.

Bad things have indeed been done in the name of Christianity....mostly in the dark ages.

What urks me is that Dinesh would draw on the dark ages, when the majority of people couldn't even read the Scriptures for themselves and were manipulated by their leadership to behave in certain ways. They lived in fear that to not comply with their church leaders, they might lose their salvation or be labeled a heretic.

They certainly did not know the truth nor were they living according to the scriptures. Instead, they were living according to those who TOLD them what to think and do.

Of course, this does little to justify the silence of the majority during the holocaust - although we know that there were both Catholics and Protestants that hid Jews in their homes....risking their own lives. I believe that the Lord has always had a remnant of Believers. All you need do is look at someone like Corrie Ten Boom - read the Hiding Place.

What is disturbing, is that in 2007, muslims can be manipulated by their religious leaders, as were the people in the dark ages, to murder, kill and destroy - all in the name of their god. What's worse, is that they cannot claim that all these folks are uneducated or that they cannot read.....so they are literally doing the work of their Koran.

Posted by: The Goobs at January 29, 2007 2:19 PM

I should probably clarify my position. I certainly do not wish to appear that I am anti-Protestant or anti-Catholic. I guess what I am is anti-organization.

I do not believe in man-made organizations, even those that claim to be sanctioned by God. I believe that the Church is not an organization and it is not a building. It is the body of Believers and Jesus Christ is the head of the Church - not a pastor, not a pope. I believe that when the Church gets together to worship God, or to study the scriptures or to build each other up - they 'assemble together', or are an assembly. This can be in a building or a home. Doesn't matter.

I also believe that there are Believers sitting in both the Catholic and Protestant organizations....but I also believe that not all those who are members of those organizations are Believers. Christ knows who belongs to Him.

Posted by: The Goobs at January 29, 2007 2:31 PM

"?I do not believe in man-made organizations, even those that claim to be sanctioned by God. I believe that the Church is not an organization and it is not a building. It is the body of Believers and Jesus Christ is the head of the Church - not a pastor, not a pope. I believe that when the Church gets together to worship God, or to study the scriptures or to build each other up - they 'assemble together', or are an assembly. This can be in a building or a home. Doesn't matter.

I also believe that there are Believers sitting in both the Catholic and Protestant organizations....but I also believe that not all those who are members of those organizations are Believers. Christ knows who belongs to Him."

=----------------
We hereby stamp thee with our Seal of Approval- God in Peace, my child.

Posted by: allat at January 29, 2007 5:36 PM

D'Souza himself shows how hollow his conclusions are when he compares a mythical Christian group who is bombing abortion clinics, to how Muslims radicalize. He presented the premise that if the world at large condemned this mythical abortion-bombing-group, then the "mainstream" Christians will become bombers.

That is ludicrous. Christians would condemn the wrong doer! It is silly to say that Christians would radicalize if the world condemned wrongdoers. We believe in the rule of law! We have no concept of "Christian is my brother, right or wrong!"

There have been those misled types who have done crimes in the name of Jesus Christ, not many, of course, but we condemn them when they do pop up. We put them in jail and force them to serve their time, they pay their price to society.

Murder is murder and there is no way Christians would coddle any bombers, no way, no how!

I have been reading the book, "The Looming Tower" which is an exhaustive study on Sayiid Qutb, Ayman al Zawahiri and OBL. It is just astonishing how much all these men seem to blame anything and everything in their lives on someone, anyone else. They don't seem to have any cognizance of the blood on their hands. Yet, if anything happens to them, woe! call the waaambulence!

When the Egyptian police tried to kill Zawahiri, after he killed hundreds of people, what did he write? "How could they make my 2 year old daughter an orphan?" Poor pathetic OBL, when he was kicked out of Sudan, looked down from the plane at his abandoned farm and realized that no one would love him anymore now that the Saudis took away all his money. The feudal Lord was cast down from his mighty throne.

The man who started all this, Sayiid Qutb, visited a very conservative Northern Colorado in the 1950s, it was very straight-laced, he said he connected well with the people, yet because he was dark skinned, he thought he was discriminated against. Call the waaaambulence! It wasn't the values there that made him hate the place. This was apple pie America.

D'Souza is just wrong on all sides. You will never make these people happy. Qutb, you know, never married. He told his friends that he could not find a woman on earth holy enough for him.

Posted by: Kay at January 30, 2007 1:51 AM

Listening to the 'debate' was instructive. D'Souza, calls for an understanding of family values, a clarion call, that 'traditional' muslims will join, as opposed to the jihadism, which will result if we attack the fundaments that the jihadists call too and for.

Anyone see problems with this? Remember- this is exactly what we have been doing for 50 yrs. Giving the multicultural thumbs up, to everyone and without allowing the natural competition to shop and compare, ethically, morally, and worse.

For instance- this past week- China conceded to the intimidation that might arise if they allow 'pigs' to be used as images in their nation. So- the Jews, who's kashrut laws are 3300 yrs plus old, more prescise and from which a second rate knockoff, called halal was created, hasn't ever imposed it's restrictions to others, nor in modern times, would a piggy bank evoke problems, for them and for others.
Yet for muslims, traditional one's- the 'piggy bank,' a sign of frugality, of saving, of 'values' is too tenuous for 'traditional' family valued muslims to tolerate in nonmuslims or for their sensitive eyes.

And what do we gather from this? That the jewish kashrut, never imposed it's beliefs on others, that it could engender it's own values in the family of other cultures values, and not act irrationally, nor irascibly, nor tyrannically. Yet, the muslims
with their imitation kashrut- tyrannically impose their beliefs upon others- to the point of rioting, of not allowing others to live, nor let live.

And There are countless examples of this exact same tyranny, whereby the 'family values' of muslims must be imposed upon nonmuslims, and bespeak what...?

The teachings of their Prophet, which involve submitting others to his and their beliefs. That is the history of Islam and now with carte blanche freedom and growth granted from our western civilization- they, are striving to impose upon us, their 'imposition' whilst the religion they despise, which never imposed upon us, any obligation, except to live and let live, is presently under venal and grossly vicious attack- and by many muslims who've never been able to read the actual history or theology in any of their societies.

Chritianity, grew and gave us the federal republic in the US, an advancement of western civilization that is now used by traditional Islamic imams for similar impositions of their belief, after having been tolerated and allowed all manner of intrusions upon the society. And we have what- humdreds and thousands of events of Jihadists who have been called byh the 'original' and only theology and Islamic history allowed. The one for muslims versus the one for kaffurs. That is the problem.

The solutuon then is to honestly compare issues, beliefs and the results in the real world. For instance, the Jews, never imposed their beliefs upon others, but allowed for the freedoms of others, yet the imitation Islam attacked, submitted, and has joined a tyranny to enforce it's beliefs upon the world throughout it's history and now- with a ferocity and vicousness, which comes from it's origines- Mohammad without any capacity to allow the reformation that Christianity had to undergoe to grow and grow and develop for us, some of the fundaments of our western civilization that allow for the tolerance and dignity of others that Islam never managed to concieve as possible.

So here we are- and the traditional muslims never marched by the thousands in England to demand that others have their piggy banks, and that others enjoy their lives and to compete in the marketplace of theology based upon the results of their beliefs and practices. Rather- in virtually all muslim nations- the homicidists grow since that was the origin of Islam, and it's theology and it's history.

Yes- most muslims hare not homicidists, and yes most homicidists are muslim. That is the problem and the problem is not that we don't share our family values, but that we don't share our frank and forthright competition and comparisons, lest we 'offend' and of course- that is a logical absurdity.

No Jew would ever be offended at a piggy bank.
A muslim would be offended. No- not all.

But they would never march in our favor to have such for our societies. See how easy it is?

Simply point out the innumberable tyrannies imposed by Islam, and force them to either accept that they are tyrannic to themselves and others, and come to the inevitable conclusions or they will be forced to answer the charges that they are incapable of resisting their most violent tyrannic urges let alone accepting that which others have granted to them- freedom to believe and practice.

Oh- D'Souza said, the Bible has tales of cruelty ( paraphrasing here) every bit as violent as Islam. Actually- no. Those were at a certain place and certain time and not forever- as Islam's was so ordained. That is the critical difference. And the ensuing historical veracity of the difference evidenced by history is there for all to see. Unless of course, we simply place stupid and insist that by sharing family values, we will all be able to reason together. What cark, what silliness....

Mark

Posted by: mgoldberg at January 30, 2007 8:39 AM

Mark, you are so right. The concept of freedom of expression of ideas, to debate and compare ideas so we can compare results of our beliefs... this is sacred to Western civilization. To turn our backs on it is just the worst crime of all. And that is exactly what we are doing! The big, "shut up, you are promoting hate", that is all I hear all day long. "Shut up!". Where is our town square? Is it gone?

Posted by: Kay at January 30, 2007 10:13 AM