Is there some clause in D'Souza's contract that requires him to always say, "Like a mosquito in a nudist colony, I don't know where to begin?"
Do people come just waiting for the moment he can say it? Is it simpy expected like Elvis singing "Can't help falling in Love" at the close of his concerts?
Wouldn't it behoove D'Souza to learn where to begin?

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 2, 2007 11:39 AM

wow Pamela is a hottie.

Posted by: sectionOne at March 2, 2007 11:40 AM

Hey Robert, give Pamela a hug and kiss for me - I'm sure you won't mind.

Posted by: jewdog at March 2, 2007 11:51 AM

I could only stomach a few minutes of this. D'souza was getting far too warm a reception -- this does not bode well for Conservatives. how much is coming from Saudis funding? I think a link needs to be established (or re-established) with moderate, secular Leftists (in Europe and elsewhere). The ultra-right-wing pro-jihadists (of the D'Souza variety) who just "love" Muslims for their "family values" of FGmutilation, honour killings, and mass murder and the ultra-left-wing pro-jihadists who also just "love Mulsims" can have each other...

Posted by: J.S. at March 2, 2007 11:51 AM

Was he talking to someone in the audience while D'Souza was speaking?

Posted by: wrathofasma at March 2, 2007 11:57 AM

Robert sounded more rational and based his comments on fact, not on 'playing the audience'. D'Souza didn't address any of the main points. I want to hear him admit that there are undeniable elements of Islam that preach war on unbelievers. He never addresses that.

And if he truly believes that Robert's books are going to push the mainstream moderate muslims to Jihad then the war is already lost, because they weren't moderate to begin with if thats true. I'll be damned if I'm going to walk on eggshells around muslims for the rest of my life just so i don't offend their sensibilities and they freak out and behead me.

Of course it would be MY fault for stepping on their feelings

Posted by: kelisw at March 2, 2007 12:19 PM

On the Atlas Shrugs site there are links to videos labeled Part I and Part II but they are both the same video clip (Part II ?) so it starts in the middle somewhere.

While Dinesh is speaking Robert appears to be making dismissive/mocking facial gestures in the direction of Dinesh. I can understand that for Robert to be sitting there listening to this prima donna mamma's boy trashing his work without even having thoroughly read it must fill him with contempt but it would be better not to let it show. To unaligned audience members it may have been off-putting.

I agree with all the points Robert was making.

If someone were to say that accusing evangelical Christians of being theocrats is going to drive them into the arms of abortion clinic bombers most conservatives would recognize it as a crude attempt at an unjustified and unrealistic put down of evangelicals. However when D'Souza makes roughly equivalent statements about his "traditional Muslims" and Islam/jihad he presents himself as their defender against unfair criticism.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at March 2, 2007 1:05 PM

In my assessment (stated previous and again here), D’Souza has always been prone to using sound bites … in lieu of contributing something of intellectual substance.

On past political topics, even when his sound bites may have resonated with me, I was still suspicious of this guy. I detected something disingenuous in him.

Now (for the damage he is doing) I rather despise him.

Posted by: LoneRanger at March 2, 2007 2:03 PM

Robert

One thing you stated was that it would be asinine to state that Mohammed was the founder of terrorism, Why? Would it be because:

1. Someone before him 'founded' terror?
   
2. What he did wasn't technically terror - he only had his 'guilty' critics and enemies killed?
   
3. It would turn off any Muslims who are receptive to your message?
   
4. Any combination of the above?
   

Reason Mohammed didn't technically practice terrorism was that he didn't have to: he either was building up his base while the ruler of Medina, or he had enough military might to pulverize his enemies once he was ready. And once his armies got into motion and could defeat not only the local Arabs, but also the Byzantines, Sassanids and others, they didn't need to practice terror because they militarily took over the places that they conquered.

Something they couldn't do to the West.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 2:33 PM

Public debate is quite difficult. Very well done indeed.

Posted by: counterjihadi at March 2, 2007 3:48 PM

Like a mosquito in a nudist colony I don't know where to begin...

Translation:

"I just got my ass handed to me and don't have a response."

It's not "conservative" in the least to turn one's back to the truth in order to appease others' delicate sensibilities. And the blaringly obvious point, which Mr Spencer recited, is that moderate Muslims, if they reject jihad, would never turn to it under any circumstances, even if their religion were criticized or castigated.

It amazes me that a "conservative", in light of years and years of cultural demeanings of Christianity (Piss Christ, the Holy Virgin Mary, etc...), none of which resulted in violence, actually believes we need to go out of our way to be nice to Muslims to help them resist the urge to kill us. Where can the difference be found...why didn't Christians kill or riot or burn, loot and pillage when their faith was insulted? Why need we fear Muslims turning to violence if we merely criticize their religion?

Why is that?

Dhimmis like D'Souza never ask themselves these questions, because they fear the answers.

Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 2, 2007 6:13 PM

As someone else has mentioned DD is all about "sound bites" -- not thought, not intellect, not about engaging in a rational debate -- for DD it's all about swishy-feel-good, let's hug Muslims. (This is precisely what I've experienced listening to Canadian media re: Muslims/Islam -- they take the following tact (and, I believe, it's extremely successful):
1) Muslims are oppressed by racist bigots (Muslims are the world's "new Jews.")
2) The type of "debate" a "media" (such as CBC, BBC, The Guardian Newspaper, etc) wish to engage in -- is to invite someone whom they believe is a "racist" (I could name names, but I'll let the discerning figure it out) (I've seen this happen on numerous occasions both on CBC tv and radio), then rather than address the issue, they will "defend against the slanders of that most holy of holy religions" -- Islam.
3) The "defenders" of said cult of Islam (typically) are not Muslim (as I laugh)...yet, these self-proclaimed, self-righteous defenders of the faith will heroically mount a rousing defense of their imaginary, "oppressed" Muslims, to much audience applause (including standing ovations). They do this, I believe, more for show / spectacle / theatre...
4) Thus, the whole trick is to get the "racists" to show up. I'm pretty much soured on the whole sorry spectacle... and the outcome is entirely predictable. The "defenders of the faith" will ultimately claim "victory" no matter how pathetic, how intellectually enfeebled, how off-topic and imbecilic their "defense" of the indensible (ie Islam as its currently practiced) is. And, (judging from things here in Canada -- and what everyone in the media now proclaims are Canada's "National heroes" -- I'd say, "Ja!! Iz verking!!" Chalk it up to the fact that the average IQ hovers at or near room temperature...

Posted by: J.S. at March 2, 2007 6:19 PM

Muslims wish they were persecuted in a real way the way the Jews have been for 5,000 years. Then they'd have something to cry about.

What D'Souza should be addressing is the Islamic culture of victimization that permeates there existance. Everything to them is an oppression, an insult. He should be asking himself (and Muslims) why Robert Spencer offends them but the jihadists which bastardize their religion do not? Why is it that the jihadists hijacking their religion do not motivate them to take action to condemn them and drive them away from the mainstream where they are so firmly entrenched, but Robert Spencer pointing this out would drive them to join their ranks?

These questions are such obvious responses to D'Souza's postulations that it boggles the mind that we need ask them at all; that none of this ever occured to D'Souza before he bothered writing his book. It's a crystal-clear window into the poisoned dhimmi mind, more frightening and dangerous than the most violent jihadist.

Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 2, 2007 6:30 PM

I caught the tail end of the debate on C-SPAN earlier this evening. I checked the schedule and they will be showing it again Saturday morning at 6:25 a.m. Did the debate last just 25 minutes?

My jaw dropped when D'Souza said that the majority of Muslims live in democracies, proof of how liberal they are. Exhibits A and B were Indonesia and Turkey.

So how do non-Muslims get along in either of these countries?

Do they have equal rights and freedom of worship?

I didn't think so.

Nice try, Dinesh.

Posted by: PMK at March 2, 2007 9:04 PM

On a pedantic note:

"...all the hideous deeds performed by Islamic conquerors, especially in their early centuries of irredentist expansion." - D'Souza

The word 'irredentist' is an interesting one in that it was originally applied only to those Italians, in the Trieste area, who had somehow been left behind by the Risorgimento and were still included in the Austro-Hungarian empire. They wanted to have there territory transferred to the Italian state, and since then the word has been applied to a political movement that wants to leave one country and join the one it on which it borders with whom it shares the same ethnicity, culture etc. As far as I can make out D'Souza is using an impressive sounding word here, without knowing what it means.

Posted by: wallyUK at March 2, 2007 9:39 PM

oops - for 'there' read 'their' n above

Posted by: wallyUK at March 2, 2007 9:40 PM

Robert, you say: "reactions here have been mixed."

I'd like to know more about that. How is the truth being received? Has this changed with D’Souza’s recent argument? What problems does the audience have facing the harsh facts? Are more people “getting it” or do some still have a problem?

Are you now important enough to have a significant number of opponents? That's a sign of progress! It means you’re having an effect. Is the audience at CPAC generally receptive?

Posted by: JasonP at March 2, 2007 10:25 PM

Spencer got a far better reaction than D'Souza did.

Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 2, 2007 10:48 PM

D'Souza doesn't even understand democracy if he is claiming Turkey and Indonesia as examples.

I would recommend ...

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/
whatdm2.htm

Posted by: LoneRanger at March 2, 2007 11:06 PM

Robert, your not doing yourself *any* favors by constantly interrupting and agitating whenever Dinesh was speaking.

It comes off as rude, insolent and insecure. Just shut up and let the man speak, no matter if you disagree with him or not. Your points are valid, but your demeanor is ridiculous.

I've never seen you debate before, but now that I have, I can see why your credibility suffers. You are an insecure man.

Posted by: Rupert at March 3, 2007 12:19 AM

Just by stating the things he did about India d'souza forfeits his argument in my book.
Game over.

Indonesia is no democracy either,the sharia is still part of the legal system.
It was once the largest bhuddist nation on earth and still has some amazing temples left,for how long no-one knows.
Islam was the defacto worst thing that ever happened to the idyllic south sea Islands and archepeligos.
D'souza is a whitewash merchant and taquiyya artist.
If all you've ever been taught about history is from an Islamic perspective your bound to be brainwashed.
They love smashing libraries,temples,burning books etc..erasing history along the way so you can re-write it.
Standard practice of the tyrannical.

p.s I reckon Robert is grinning like a chesire cat cus he's thinking about the delightful pamela...wouldn't you?

Remember Robert what goes on tour stays on tour.
It's worked for me.

Posted by: ovinesongs at March 3, 2007 11:34 AM

Robert Spencer made a persuasive, convincing and passionately logical argument to prove Islam is the root cause of terrorism. Dinesh D'Souza is in deep denial and his cognitive distortion precluded him from observing the evil nature of Islam. D'Souza failed to see that through out history everything Islam touched has been marred with wars, tyranny, massacre and terror. Islam was responsible for the violent destruction of civilizations, ethical concepts, faiths and ancient cultures. Instead of helping Muslims to extricate from their minds of Islam's evil control, free themselves from the shackles of Islamic terror, D'Souza was trying to reinforce Islamic hatred and violence. It is time for people like D'Souza to abandon for good all illusions about Islam. He needs to study Islam, its brutal past and present terrorist aacts with an open mind.
Babu Suseelan

Posted by: babu Suseelan at March 3, 2007 10:15 PM

Robert- Why did you keep grabbing at Double D's microphone? I counted at least 3 times. I could hear him fine on CSPAN. What were you trying to do?
I agree with you totally, but that was odd.

Posted by: Bingo at March 4, 2007 6:50 AM

Bingo:

CPAC officials came up several times and told me that he was too close to the microphone, and that I should tell him to move back. Rather than interrupt him by doing that, I pulled his microphone back.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 4, 2007 7:20 AM

CSPAN Real Video archive of this video

rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/c08/c08_030107_cpac.rm

Posted by: Vince at March 5, 2007 10:38 PM