Dinesh D'Souza is a big shot. He is spread too thin and my guess having interns help write his wayward books. He's a big deal scholar of some kind (their pet Indian?)(affirmative action Indian?) over at Stanford and doesn't have time to debate the likes of Robert Spencer and defend his Islam book

Laura Ingram offered last night to host a Spencer-D'Souza debate

Posted by: dennisw at January 31, 2007 11:20 AM

D'Souza realizes too late that his theories are baloney. Rather than admit he made a mistake, he chooses avoidance. This is so typical of scholars who get it wrong. They would rather live in denial than admit they are wrong. It is far too commonplace.

Posted by: John Sobieski at January 31, 2007 11:24 AM

John Sobieski

An intern must have come up with D'Souza's brilliant writing about Said Qutb who was so disgusted by American decadence and a church dance in the late 1940s. America was very socially conservative back then. A lapse of reason by D'Souza et al to claim that Qutb was right to be repulsed by such "decadence" as if the American pop culture of today is what Qutb encountered here late 1940s-early 1950s

American pop culture is a degenerate money grubbing mad house today but this was hardly the case during Qutb's visit here

Posted by: dennisw at January 31, 2007 11:34 AM

Looks like Dinesh will get a good night's sleep tonight.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 31, 2007 11:38 AM

An important implication about Qutb's visceral fear & loathing at the moral depravity of a church social in 1948 America that is not usually brought up: the mindset of Qutb in 1948 is the same mindset of most Muslims today. Meanwhile, over the past 60 years, American culture has transmogrified in a wondrous melange of exhilarating, progressive, outrageous and disturbing ways -- so imagine how Muslims, with their unevolved minds, feel when they contemplate hip hop culture, girls gone wild, Mardi Gras, the increasingly insouciant discussions of all matters sexual in public venues, etc. Imagine Qutb himself walking out of a time machine to walk in on a Fitty Cent concert and seeing black girls bearing their legs, midriff and most of their breasts, simulating humping with black guys on a stage while the singer raps about fucking hos in the ass...

While we know that the Grievance of Muslims is perennial and goes back to Mohammed, nevertheless, there are superficial factors that can make a madman more, or less, epileptically mouth-frothing.

Posted by: remote_control at January 31, 2007 11:48 AM

I am not suprised. He will only debate Mr. Spencer in a setting that he can control with allies setting the pace. I do not expect he will take on Mr. Spencer in any more "fair" fights.

The good sign is it proves he was hurt in the first scrap. It also shows that Mr. Spencer (even with a bad phone connection) was able to defeat D'Souza. He has by now read Mr. Spencer's review of his book. He knows he is fighting a losing strategy of going up against Mr. Spencer is a straight fight.

"To refrain from intercepting an enemy whose banners are in perfect order, to refrain from attacking an army drawn up in calm and confident array:--this is the art of studying circumstances." Sun Tzu, Art of War

D'Souza now flees to a defensive position in CPAC surrounded by his allies. His offensive was bad news and he needs to change his strategy. Be careful however.....

this is when he and his allies could go into the gutter???

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 31, 2007 12:22 PM

FWIW - D'Souza will be on C-SPAN2 (booktv) twice this weekend - noon (eastern) Sunday and later at midnight - http://www.booktv.org/schedule/

From the website:

Call Mr. D'Souza with your questions during the program or e-mail your question to booktv@c-span.org.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at January 31, 2007 12:33 PM

Hopefully this time, Robert can coolly cut him to pieces at the CPAC debate. The moderator may side with that gadha (that's ass in Hindi) D'Souza but the audience will surely be convinced by Robert's argument.

Posted by: wrathofasma at January 31, 2007 12:38 PM

Robert Spencer QUOTE from above:

"As far as I know, however, the CPAC debate is still on for March 1, and I am still willing and eager to debate Dinesh D'Souza anytime, anywhere."

YES THE REAL QUESTION IS DOES DINESH D'SOUZA WANT TO DEBATE YOU AGAIN? I DONT THINK SO! FROM WHAT I HEARD OF D'SOUZA ON THE RADIO DEBATE -HE LOVES STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS AND THINKS REFERENCES ISLAMS LONG REIGN OF TERROR IS A 'POLEMIC' [1]. SUCH A 'DEBATER' OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REAL INTELLECTUAL ABILITY TO ARGUE EFFECTIVELY.

MESSAGE TO D'SOUZA;

ARE YOU SCARED DINESH? DO YOU HEAR THE CHICKEN SOUNDS IN THE BACKGROUND. SUCK IT UP BE A MENSH AND STOP CANCELLING DEBATES WITH ROBERT SPENCER.

OH YOU WERE BUSY? SUUUURE YOU WERE. PROVE IT --DO NOT CANCEL THE MARCH DEBATE.

YOU UP TO IT DINESH? OR ARE YOUR KNEES KNOCKING TOGETHER?

----
[1] Dinesh D'Souza is obviously somebody who does not have an understanding of the most basic historical actions of Islam. 25 years of terror only? Dinesh, my boy, the 'prophet' muhammed was a warlord general who CONQURED Arabia as soon as he could muster an army and convert it to islam. You claim to be a Chrstian. Did Jesus every do such a thing? Dinesh there is an old bible proverb that says you should cover your mouth when youve spoken like a fool. Wise words from the scriptures you say you follow dinesh.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at January 31, 2007 12:46 PM

I have just received word that D'Souza has canceled.

Sagging on his stool in his corner of the ring, boxing gloves dangling and mouthpiece hanging, eyes glazed, face all puffy and purple, eyes mere swollen slits, Dinesh wonders why he ever decided to smash his rocketing face into Spencers motionless but firm fists, time after time after every explosive time.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 31, 2007 12:58 PM

Lame Cherry said

Apparently, Mr. Spencer scored a knockout

Alarmed Pig Farmer said

Sagging on his stool in his corner of the ring, boxing gloves dangling

Robert is the Mike Tyson of anti-jihad debating, but without the tatoo covering half his head or the domestic violence.

Posted by: special_guest at January 31, 2007 1:13 PM

Mr. Spencer

May I suggest you start using:

"Traditional Muslim Alert" (Like "1938 Alert" etc.)

in honor of D'Souza...

That one will never get old. :)

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 31, 2007 1:15 PM

D'Souza seems to offer nothing more than a excuse for the Muslims to mask their true intensions behind.

Remind that Fool that it was the Christian Right that Denounced the Abortion Bombings. Nor did they Impeade law enforcement from catching the perpertrators.

Make him list all those good conservitive Muslims denounsing the Violence in Allahs name.

Simple questions, Who are they, where are they and how many of them are there.

If there were any, I would think the Left in this country would have dragged them befor the cameras as another Hammer against the President and his policys.

All we ever hear are our own Idiots making excuses for others intentional criminal behavior

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 31, 2007 1:40 PM

I was able to listen to the Lores Rizkalla Show archive tape today. Not being from LA I had never heard of her before. It seemed clear to me that she was generally on Robert's side (i.e. she has her head on straight regarding Islam).

A radio talk show format with short segments really doesn't lend itself to sorting out these kinds of issues. They really don't lend themselves to sound bites.

If I could have called in to the show I would have liked to ask Dinesh D'Souza the following:
1) You say the Left caused 9/11 because it promotes a culture that is at odds with traditional/conservative social values that conservative Muslims/Christians/Hindus share. Europe is even farther down the secular humanist path than the U.S. is. In many respects Europe is the model of where the Left in the U.S. wants to go. Yet most of the 9/11 terrorists were based in Europe. Why did they come all the way here to commit 9/11 if their grievance was cultural?
2) You say that the Clinton administration contributed to 9/11 by projecting weakness against terrorism. This caused al-Qaeda to change its strategy from attacking its "near enemy": "secular" Mideastern regimes to attacking its "far enemy" the U.S.. Why did Bin Laden consider us his enemy to begin with? Why didn't the Clinton lack of resolve against terrorism lead to similar attacks on the U.S. from the Tamil Tigers or the Basque ETA terror groups?
3) Why are you afraid to engage Robert Spencer in an intellectually honest discussion of the issue of Islam as it relates to jihad?

What I would really like to see would be some kind of moderated internet debate where you can both get your points of view across in full without the cross talk. I expect D'Souza would duck out though.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at January 31, 2007 6:02 PM

"this guy, like all of 'em, practiced what he has been taught all his life, "outwit and lie to the filthy Christians and Jews for Allah, the God of liars"."

Dinesh D'Souza is an Indian Catholic. He was once the editor of the Catholic magazine Crisis and also authored a book on the Catholic classics.

Posted by: vergescue at January 31, 2007 7:12 PM

Too much is made, or distorted or twisted, about Dinesh D'Souza's background. Is he Hindu? Is he Catholic? Is he Muslim? Is he this or that?

It's all silly. It misses the point.

The point is: he is insufficiently knowledgeable. The point is: he underestimates how much one would need to know, and not only to know, but to make his own, to thoroughly assimilate, about Islam to write about it, to make sense of the matter intelligently. He has low standards, and he meets only those standards. Just.

Posted by: Hugh at January 31, 2007 7:31 PM

Hmmm. I don't think I've distorted or twisted Dinesh's background. I do not know if he is still a practicing Catholic. I assume so. That he was editor of Crisis under Michael Novak and that he authored the Catholic Classics is a simple matter of public record.

It is worth noting that Dinesh's postion is close to the Vatican's, which sees God-fearing Muslims as allies against the graver threats of atheism and moral relativism.

Posted by: vergescue at January 31, 2007 7:54 PM

Where I disagree with D'Souza is on his proposal for an alliance between Christians and Muslims.

There is little common ground between the faiths.

As John Quincy Adams said:

"...he [Mohamet] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind..The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God."

I think John Qunicy Adams had a better understanding of Islam than our currentleaders and D'Souza.

Posted by: DavidE at January 31, 2007 9:46 PM

Typical liberal. When faced with adversity whine and run away

Posted by: Tookson at January 31, 2007 10:05 PM

The reason Bush won't call a spade a spade and declare who the real enemy is in this war on terror is because idiots like D'Souza and Grover Norquist have his ear. This country needs new leadership at all levels, and the professional politicians and the professional political families should be sent packing. Like the Bush/Rove strategy of giving illegals amnesty in the hope that they become Republicans, here's another silly approach that if we bend over for these people, they won't slit our throats. Should we take that chance?!

Posted by: FallaciFan at January 31, 2007 11:06 PM

vergescue:
More details please on your assertion that the Vatican seeks God-fearing Muslims as allies against atheism and moral relativism. Post a link or two to support your item above.
The truth is probably more complex in that the Vatican is keeping passive so as not to bring about the widespread bombing and looting and destruction of churches throughout the world ..for which disasters the victim, the Church, would get the blame! .. not that there are any such buildings in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: meekee at February 1, 2007 10:49 AM

It amazes me that one group of Americans blames another group of Americans for the events of 9-11. Blaming the liberals for 9-11 is absolutely ridicules. In fact if you look at recent terror attacks by Americans, they have been from extreme right-wing Americans.

"The Oklahoma City and Atlanta attacks had been conducted by right-wing Americans, with tenuous ties to homegrown militias and religious extremists. Another, potentially devastating attack involved Americans in a right-wing militias planning to explode a gas storage facility in Fresno. FBI surveillance of the militias had overtly that calamity."

~"Against All Enemies"
Richard Clark - Served the last three presidents on the National Security Council Staff.~

We as Americans should quit pointing fingers at other Americans for Jihad. Islam is to blame for most terror activities, not your liberal neighbor. The one positive, at least it is bringing the debate of Jihad to light. I believe most Americans are ignorant to the true threat of Jihad even after 9-11. This is true for all Americans, right-wing and left-wing. When are we going to learn to agree to disagree, treat other Americans as our brothers and sisters. If anything aids the terrorist it is this constant attack of political parties, pitting one group of Americans against another group. Jihad is the enemy, period. Liberals come in all shapes and sizes and may even share some of the same opinions as you all, but we are not the enemy.

By the way, you should all read the above book. "Against All Enemies", it is very informative that every American should read.

One other comment. I've been visiting this website for a few months and it is great. I can see I am the minority here but it's great to see other opinions from a different view point.

Posted by: kleebright at February 1, 2007 11:59 AM

More details please on your assertion that the Vatican seeks God-fearing Muslims as allies against atheism and moral relativism. Post a link or two to support your item above.

Sure. It looks like this post is about to disappear from the front page, but I am glad to respond.

First, I think the quote below accurately sums up the view of Islam shared by this Pope and other high-ranking leaders of the Catholic Church.

Benedict XVI admires in Islam the certainty based on faith, which contrasts with the West where everything is relativized; and he admires in Islam the sense of the sacred, which instead seems to have disappeared in the West. He has understood that a Muslim is not offended by the crucifix, by religious symbols: this is actually a laicist polemic that strives to eliminate the religious from society. Muslims are not offended by religious symbols, but by secularized culture, by the fact that God and the values that they associate with God are absent from this civilization.

Such a view explains why the Holy See sought alliances with Islamic states before the Cairo Conference in 1994, to oppose calls for enshrining abortion as a right in international law. As TIME reported:

Seeking support for the Pope's stand against the conference, his envoys met this summer with leaders from several Muslim countries, including Iran and Libya. The envoys got cordial receptions because the followers of Islam, besides having rigid ideas about the role of women, generally disapprove of abortion. It's not clear how many nations will join the Catholic-Muslim opposition in Cairo, but the conference is sure to be a contentious affair.

Also, as was discussed here, recall that Vatican offcials several times denounced publication of the Danish cartoons. Here is Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, referring to the cartoon controversy:

"It is necessary to defuse the anti-Islamic grudge nettling in many hearts, despite the endangering of the life of many Christians. Furthermore the steadfast condemnation of forms of derision of religion – and here I am also referring to the episode of the irreverent satirical cartoons that inflamed the Islamic masses at the beginning of this year – is an essential precondition for condemning the exploitation of it."

I expect Robert would agree with me that the Holy See's view of Islam is closer to Dinesh's than his own.

Posted by: vergescue at February 1, 2007 7:38 PM

The discussion on Lores Rizkalla is well worth listening to. Robert outclasses him--but I wish they would let each other finish their thoughts--RS--you have too much truth on your side to worry that you need to cut off the dummy.

Though, it is not popular to say this on JW--I think the West's decadence does work in favor of the Jihadi's recruitment efforts. The examples that D'Souza gives of the way the western charities pipe in our trashy media, distribute condoms and promote abortion rights--all this does work against our cause--because cultures that uphold the virture of virginity and marriage have it in their face that we are bent on corrupting them (yes I am aware of how sick the muslims are--that they beat their wives and treat women as scum in general).

That being said--RS correctly establishes that the real root of the problem at the core of the terrorism is the incitement of the muslim fundamentalists from the vile koran itself. D'Souza couldn't defend his arguament that we shouldn't point to islam as the real problem. It is well worth listening to this discussion/debate.

Posted by: BB at February 2, 2007 3:41 AM