A couple things.

First, I am thrilled to hear that Mr. Spencer is booked solidly into 2008. That's wonderful news for the anti-sharia movement.

Second, Mr. Spencer is too nice....what with not naming names and all.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at October 11, 2007 4:53 PM

Mr. Spencer is too wise for those fellas, and all. And they know it.

Posted by: Dsinc at October 11, 2007 5:15 PM

Is there a page with your speaking schedule on it? It's kind of hard to book plane tickets to hear you speak without knowing where and when.

Posted by: aynrandgirl at October 11, 2007 5:17 PM

I guess this man and I could debate whether or not these are positive things, since obviously he believes there are, but I am not going to discuss whether putting people to death by stoning or subjugating them under the rule of an alien and draconian law are good things or not. Anyone with a conscience can see that they are not.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 11, 2007 5:18 PM

Aynrandgirl:

My Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week appearances are posted at FrontPage. However, because of the many death threats I've received from the coreligionists of these men who want to debate me to prove their religion is peaceful, I generally don't reveal where I'm going beforehand.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 11, 2007 5:28 PM

"....I've told them I'm willing to debate them all -- whereupon they all ran as fast as they could in the opposite direction, all the while claiming that I had declined their challenge".

I would not be surprised if the Moe Howard "distinguished professor" Doktor Karl "Islamaphobia is my favorite propaganda word" Ernst was among them. However, I doubt that Fibrahim "Farfur style propaganda" Hooper or Edina (Ed-209) Lekovic would debate. (Fibrahim and Ed-209 are not very bright.)

http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-1284701055605597022

Posted by: Frank at October 11, 2007 5:46 PM

Ya DO know, Robert...
their lexicon of you "not debating them" or what-have-you of the like is well known, and translates into the notion you don't blindly walk into their lion's den of hecklers and thugs who aren't interested in any form of "debate" at all, but that of a zoo filled with chest-thumping ego-feeding antics all for show for their own benefit.

Ok, ok...I know, tellin' ya what you already know.
But hey...it still bears mentioning, even if it's merely to put them on notice that we're aware of their playbook.

For the same reasons you stated for youself, we will also be at certain unnamed "wackodemic" institutions out here (islamists will have to guess which ones).

I do hope all goes well.
YOU just stay safe...and alive.
All the best,
jcom

Posted by: jcom972 at October 11, 2007 6:20 PM

Ali Sina does a lot of debating on his Faith Freedom International website. He seems to maintain a constant dialogue stream, but he doesn't let it interfere with other postings. I guess I'd like to see debates featured, but mainly with more prominent people, and less so with Joe Sixpack (I'm a snob). In any case, I suggest Ali's site as a good example for a format.

Posted by: jewdog at October 11, 2007 6:34 PM

Can't wait till you, Robert or Hugh, comment on this debate here between Ibn Warraq, Tariq Ramadan, William Dalrymple etc.

Dalrymple is quite a selfhating lunatic, and frere Tariq is sizzling in his own lard.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27469_Debate-_We_Should_Not_Be_Reluctant_to_Assert_the_Superiority_of_Western_Values&only

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 11, 2007 6:36 PM

And so the pathetic slander of Mr Spencer continues.

They've lost the argument, so the name calling starts.

Not even worthy of a primary school playground.

You have them rattled Mr Spencer.

Posted by: ewha1 at October 11, 2007 8:15 PM

Duh, how many internets are there, boss?

Posted by: Pelayo at October 11, 2007 8:20 PM

Pelayo:

For the source of the reference, see here:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/internets

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 11, 2007 8:33 PM

Pelayo,

There are as many Internets as there are Wild Slutty Womens. (Grammar check, please!)

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 11, 2007 8:34 PM

Robert, It's no surprise that Muslims would balk at debating you in print. After all, their model of the perfect man for all mankind to emulate is an illiterate. In addition, every time you reprint hate-mail from your Muslim "fans" it’s rife with misspellings and grammatical errors.

(It’s also difficult to bellow and gesticulate wildly in print).

Posted by: Xero G at October 11, 2007 8:59 PM

Robert, that is the very first time I ever saw "internet" in plural. I assumed that the word internets was not your usage.

I do not add notes indicating sarcasm, perhaps I should.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 11, 2007 9:11 PM

I listened to the debate once through this morning, and took no notes, but I remember some important details. The resolution, about being unafraid to assert the superiority of Western values, had on one side, supporting the resolution, Ibn Warraq, David Aronovitch, and Douglas Murray, and opposing it, Charles Glass, Tariq Ramadan, and William Dalrymple.

Ibn Warraq opened, with a nine-minute non-stop summary of why the values of the West -- a thing different from the present-day West, or parts of it -- are superior to those of the non-West. Once he had finished, it was all over.

Charles Glass then came on, to deal with the situation as best he could. He was full of arch humor, but they were fallen arches, even crestfallen arches, and consequently the humor was lame, at the level of "since I am a Westerner, and so obviously superior, as you have told me" and so on. He discussed the West, a West that in his version appeared to be one rocky horror picture show after another, consisting in the main of the Spanish Inquisition, Western imperialism at its absolute worst, , the mass-murder of European Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators, and, bien entendu, that most horrible of all crimes of humanity ever committed, the famous Auschwitz-sized death-camp-and-torture-chamber known as Abu Ghraib. That these historical events had nothing to do with the "Western values" and their assertion, which was the subject of the debate, apparently was not understood by Charles Glass. under discussion did not phase Charles Glass.

Aronovitch I hardly heard, because there were other distractions, including some phone calls. But he did talk about Islam, or Islamic states and societies, that we can observe today, beginning with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Then came the serpent, Tariq Ramadan, who turned out to have lost his head. He delivered a confused mess. He insisted that he was a "European Muslim," someone who belonged in Europe, confusing his geographical presence (yes, he is living in Europe) with an intellectual or emotional bond that he does not have, and could not have. He may live in Europe, but he is no European, and never will be. He went on and on about how so much of European civilization owed its this and its that to this or that figure whom, in Europe, "we never hear about" and "no one knows about." It was his fantastical history, where the Renaissance and for all I know the Englightenment and the French Revolution thrown in for good measure, really owe their existence to those wonderful Muslim thinkers whom we are unaware of, but of whom Tariq Ramadan is very aware. He told us again and again how necessary it was to have a real "dialogue" which dialogue could only take place if the insufferable Westerners would stop saying how "superior" they were -- that was not quite the theme of the debate, of course -- and no one interrupted to shout "but, but, isn't Islam based on the idea of the superiority of Islam, and the right and duty of Muslims to work to spread Islam until it dominates everywhere, tearing down every conceivable barrier to its spread, and to its dominance?"

He made all kinds of remarks that, when I listen for a second time, I will try to jot down. Toward the end, he started to talk about capital punishment in the United States, and how the only way to get rid of it would be not to call for an outright ban but for a "moratorium" and then he explained that that is why it was wrong for others to have attacked him for calling for a temporary "moratorium" on the stoning to death of women caught in adultery in Muslim lands -- you had to know this, for otherwise his allusion to it remains obscure.

In general, he fell apart, and he fell apart still more, raising his voice, and yelling that he believed in "humility, humility, humility." He convinced no one, but no doubt part of the audience, the third that voted for his side, would not have voted otherwise no matter what. They came to support what they saw as the Muslim Team, and they did.

The one who really gave himself away was the odious and stupid and remarkably ill-informed William Dalrymple. He went on and on about how, near to where "I live in Delhi" there is some spot connected to the reign of Akbar. And then he proceeded to tell everyone -- thank god it has been preserved on tape, for all time -- how Akbar, the "Muslim emperor," had called together Shi'a Muslims, and Sunni Muslims, and Jains, and Christians, and even Jews from Cochin, for a colloquy. And he went on and on about how splendid Akbar was. Of course, Akbar was splendid, when he became syncretistic, when he ended the Jizyah, when he essentially stopped being a Muslim in every important way. The British historian V. A. West, in his "History of India," notes that Akbar demanded that those in his inner circle had to abjure the Qur'an -- not exactly the sign of a Muslim.

So his entire speech was all about Akbar, and he apparently did not know that Akbar, the Akbar he praised, is remembered today fondly by Hindus, and despised by Muslims. And at one point he even described "Ashoka and Akbar" as Muslim leaders. Ashoka was no Muslim.

Ibn Warraq, in one of later replies, noted -- too quickly, alas -- that Akbar was no Muslim, and it was clear, according to observers, that Dalrymple was nervous, that he knew he was out of his depth.

And why was he "out of his depth"? Did he not know about Akbar? Never read the "Akbarnamah" of Fazl? Strange, isn't it, that someone who has made his entire professional career out of his supposed knowledge of Mughal India, has written all his books about Mughal India, appears to be so ignorant about Akbar, the celebrated emperor who during his reign ended the practice of demanding the payment of the Jizyah (his successor, Aurangzeb, promptly re-imposed it) and was clearly indifferent or even hostile, to so much of Islam. And Dalrymple cannot claim that little is known about Akbar or his reign, for it was recorded in great detail by Fazl, and by others. Or does Dalrymple not know that, either?

Oh, did I mention that the same Dalrymple (google his name and "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh" for my many descriptions of him as an upscale Barbara Cartland, singing the life of luxe and volupté at the Mughal court, with love intrigues in the palaces, and trans-racial transgressions, and all the rest of it) a few years ago was earning all kinds of prizes and glory for his book “The Last Mughal,” for which the claim was repeatedly made that he, Dalrymple, had come along and finally made use of the Mutiny Papers that no historian had seen or used, and until Dalrymple came along had simply been overlooked or, in some accounts, even entirely unknown. But if you read his much-overrated "The Last Mughal" you find, in the footnotes, that Dalrymple takes much, perhaps most, of what he quotes from those Mutiny Papers not directly, but from books by other, much more solid historians. He admits as much. And yet the story still makes the rounds, about how William Dalrymple used a cache of papers that no one had known about. Good Christ, you’d think he was Hyde at Malahide Castle. It’s blague. Curious that his self-promoting website, the one you get to by googling his name, and then clicking on a link that proudly describes itself as yielding “[t]he Home site of William Dalrymple, internationally acclaimed writer and historian” ( who do you suppose wrote that?), continues the tale of the Papers That No One Knew About.

There is some extravagant praise for William Hamilton-Dalrymple by the quite similar David Gilmour, similar in ways that include the vicious and viciously-expressed detestation of Israel (and one suspects, a little more than just Israel), and in addition, praise by someone who may world-famous and Indian, but has given no signs at all of thinking he has a duty to find out a bit more about the texts and tenets and attitudes of Islam, and what the Muslim conquerors and rulers did in and to India – the at-times egregious Amartya Sen. Sen, one presumes, has never read K. S. Lal, or Francois Gautier, or Koenraad Elst, and would recoil at the name “Sita Ram Goel.” For Sen is an example of the Indian who becomes famous in the Great World and who wants to make sure that he can never be accused of what in India is called “communalism” but really means all those Hindus who are aware of their being Hindus, and aware too of what Islam did to India’s civilization of Hinduism, a way of life and thought rather than a religion as we understand it in the West, in which we get a list of the stations of the cross on his lecture tours, the acclaim offered him. V. S. Naipaul is a lonely exception. Most Indians with Hindu backgrounds, in academic posts in England and America, attempt to distance themselves, ostentatiously so, from any hint of “communalism” and part of that distancing requires them to ignore or deliberately overlook, the destructive and cruel consequences (including 60-70 million murdered Hindus) of Muslim rule. It just won’t fit. And so the vague and tepid praise of Amartya Sen, which carefully does not mention the actual history which Dalrymple purports to treat, is understandable, as is that of Gilmour. But note: neither Gilmour, nor Amartya Sen, is a historian of India. What do the real historians of India think of the works of Indian history written by William Dalrymple? Judging by their non-presence at his site, not much. Perhaps I am being unfair – so someone set me straight. Some one please send me all the reviews in the scholarly journals that praise William Dalrymple the way that David Gilmour does, the way someone who is an “internationally acclaimed writer and historian” deserves to be praised.

No, Dalrymple’s idiocy about Akbar will live on forever, on the tape made of the other evening, forever made available on-lline, with a single click, to haunt him, to mock him, to serve as proof that Dalrymple the historian of Mughal India, “internationally-acclaimed,” is unsteady when it comes to possibly the most important figure in Indian history during the entire Mughal period.

And did I mention above that Dalrmple, at one point, even puts Ashoka and Akbar together and refers to both of them as “Muslim” rulers. I better check that – could I really have heard him say that? Not possible. No, I suppose anything is possible, especially if Dalrymple shows he has missed entirely the main point about syncretistic Akbar, has not understood the whole point of his later rule, and why he is revered by Hindus and despised by Muslims, though some may now invoke his name to show that “Muslims are tolerant.”

Who cares if Dalrymple writes about Englishmen at a Mughal Court (“White Mughals”), the kind of stuff that may impress those who are not experts I nthe field, or can convince the world, by dint of repetition, that he and he alone has made use of the Mutiny Papers, that, supposedly, no one else knew about or ever used, even though merely by looking at his footnotes one can see that Dalrymple quotes extensively from other historians who did know about them, and did use them.

Incredible. He’s now hoist by his own petard. Just click on the link, and perform that fast-forwarding act so you can be brought right up to William Dalrymple, making a fool of himself, for all historians of India, right at the Royal Geographical Society, next to the Kensington Gore.

And Tariq Ramadan will not be able to recover either. Those debating him in the future should use the knowledge of how easily he gets rattled, angry, grading into – if only there had been more time to see it happen – hysteria when he thinks he is not being given his due, by those beastly Westerners who for some reason think Europe belongs to them, when of course it belongs in the end to Tariq Ramadan, and to Islam, that was responsible for so much of Europe’s cultural advancement, and stands ready to work its magic on Europe yet again, thanks to those “European Muslims” such as Tariq Ramadan who apparently have a European version of the Qur’an, and a European version of the Hadith, and a thoroughly European version of the Sira, so that no one need think that their Islam, European Islam, will be anything like the Islam we see, and have seen for more than a millennium, all over Dar al-Islam.

Of course, their claque came, and determinedly voted for them, and would have, no matter what. And no doubt there was a claque of sorts among some –but by no means all --- of those who voted in support of the resolution. But the lopsided two-to-one result suggests that the great middle, the undecided part of the audience that came to hear and to be persuaded, was indeed persuaded by one side and one side only – by Ibn Warraq, by David Aronovitch, by Douglas Murray.

Note, by the way, the amusing makeup of the opposing sides. Whoever selected the two teams, appears to have tried to have had One of Each: one brown-skinned person who was born into Islam, preferably in the East; one English-based journalist with a Jewish name; one upper-class Englishman with the right old school tie. Of course, the point was that Ibn Warraq told the truth and Tariq Ramadan was a slithering and, at times, maddened and confused liar; that David Aronovitch pointed out what was happening at present, in such places as Iran, a state that tried to impose as much of the Shari’a as it could, while Charles Glass wished to keep very far from the present, except as to the putative sins of the West (Abu Ghraib! Abu Ghriab!) dwell on Islam’s presumably splendid past (“when such-and-such was happening in the Abbasid court, woad-painted savages were wandering through the woods of Surrey and Kent” – well, words to that effect), and then there was the suave Murray, and the rightly-unnerved, revealingly ignorant, historian of Mughal India, William Dalrymple.

And a good time was had, and can continue to be had, by all – by all those who are on the right side of the resolution, as of course everyone here is, or should be.

Posted by: Hugh at October 11, 2007 11:48 PM

whispers, whispers everywhere
but not a given link
the more that Robert speaks the truth
the more Islamists shrink

google, google evything
the search goes far and wide
the results are quite intersting
to find out just who lied

-for the poestess-

Posted by: awake at October 11, 2007 11:58 PM

Some desperate driveldom by the wackos on the left coast, frantic over "islamofacism awareness week"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/29/18450453.php
Forget the fact it's through one of the most schizopathic lunatic fringe websites on the net...
Insight into the mind of insanity.
And so on...
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/08/18452947.php
And so on...
http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/853400806
(including the kooks at "suckerpunch.org" which isn't surprising at all)...
and radical socialist student http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ucscswcj/messagesdiscussion groups
*yawn*

So islamofascists aren't the only ones who are desperate to impede ISLAMOFASCIST Awareness Week".

Normally it would prove laughable to rational folks...problem is, these lunatics have a known penchant for violence, not just heckling and intimidation, but outright physical violence.
They're called the brownshirts of political correctness, aka, 5th column collaborators, aka, the enemy within...and widely promoted ad nauseum by propaganda fringe websites masquerading as "independent media" which it's anything but.

This should prove interesting.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 12, 2007 12:02 AM

"I guess this man and I could debate whether or not these are positive things, since obviously he believes there are, but I am not going to discuss whether putting people to death by stoning or subjugating them under the rule of an alien and draconian law are good things or not. Anyone with a conscience can see that they are not."

Actually I think Mr.Spencer should enlist these characters as part of a debate team to debate Moderats and appologists on whether or not Islam condones violence against Infidels.

What would be more effective than to have committed Muslims making the exact points that Mr. Spencer has been trying to make for years?

How could they lose?

Posted by: rational at October 12, 2007 12:06 AM

The truth is singular but lies are numerous. The truth can stand the light of examination but falsehoods hid in the darkness of ignorance.

Proverbs 12:19
The lip of truth shall be established for ever; But a lying tongue is but for a moment.

الأمثال 12:19
الشفة من الحقيقة ينشأ عن أي وقت مضى ؛ ولكن الكذب لغتهم ولكن للحظة.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at October 12, 2007 12:28 AM

Have the battle lines not been clearly drawn enough?

Our own Vichy Left are as pathetic as the "majority of peaceful Muslims." They are, all of them, cowed into the fetal position by a small but potent and utterly determined band of muggers who will not stop. Ever. Never until they have all humans under the boot of Islam or, more likely, they return to the dust with a big X over their eyes and a big surprise when they discover they have gone to Allah--and found him shoveling coal in the remote sub-basements of Hell.

Pay no attention to any of them. Reality can cause a great deal of overthinking. If I could invent a bicycle that pedaled backwards I'd be so rich I could buy rounds in a Saudi whorehouse.

Once again, they will leave it up to the likes of us to do the dirty work for human freedom. Thankfully we are here.

Game on, brothers and sisters.

Posted by: JohnAdams at October 12, 2007 1:15 AM

Have the battle lines not been clearly drawn enough?

Our own Vichy Left are as pathetic as the "majority of peaceful Muslims." They are, all of them, cowed into the fetal position by a small but potent and utterly determined band of muggers who will not stop. Ever. Never until they have all humans under the boot of Islam or, more likely, they return to the dust with a big X over their eyes and a big surprise when they discover they have gone to Allah--and found him shoveling coal in the remote sub-basements of Hell.

Pay no attention to any of them. Reality can cause a great deal of overthinking. If I could invent a bicycle that pedaled backwards I'd be so rich I could buy rounds in a Saudi whorehouse.

Once again, they will leave it up to the likes of us to do the dirty work for human freedom. Thankfully we are here.

Game on, brothers and sisters.

Posted by: JohnAdams at October 12, 2007 1:21 AM

Muslims are so predictable. They are lurid blowhards; full of hot air, passionate declarations, and endless threats but they are cowards at heart. If verbal intimidation, self-righteous indignation, and cries of victimhood don't silence their critics, they run to their blogs and websites to slander and lie. They quote their vile qur'an and their sleazy prophet, while making ambitious predictions of islam's ultimate victory.

If they can't grandstand and dissimulate they won't debate. If they are not guaranteed a sympathetic venue that will enable or allow them to lie, deceive, or confuse the ignorant masses, they will not participate. I don't think I have ever heard a genuine debate between muslim and non-muslim islamic scholars. As far as they are concerned, non-muslims are not qualified to interpret islam or even to quote the interpretations of respected and universal authorities on islam. It's a no-win situation. They will present their usual deceptive exegeses for non-muslim audiences and anyone who dares to disagree will be accused of ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. For muslim Arabic speaking audiences, they offer the same exegeses that they rejected from you. When you speak to non-muslim audiences, muslims accuse you of ignorance and/or misrepresentation. They cannot refute anything you say so they must discredit you. It worked for a while, but it's beginning to unravel.

Thank goodness more people are listening to and believing you than them. Muslims tend to forget that Westerners are independent thinkers and although we are tolerant and generous, we detest being played for fools. There are too many contradictions, unanswered questions, ambiguities, and gaping holes in what muslims want us to believe is "real" islam. We're not stupid, but I'm not so sure about them.

Posted by: Susanp at October 12, 2007 2:00 AM

rational,

I agree, but more broadly.

How surprised might President Bush be to hear what folks like Anjem Choudary (from the UK) tell him about Islam instead of what he's getting from CAIR and Karen Hughes.

I think the IAW speakers should consider just being quiet, passing out literature, and letting the Islamofascists make as much racket as they may.

Posted by: PRCS at October 12, 2007 2:55 AM

Very effective Chief...
problem is, it takes a little more time to take root, at least with the *ahem* "undecided"s.
Most have already made up their minds, be it one way or another.
Perhaps bringing more attention to said islamofascist antics than MSM wants to (light a fire under their @$$es? lol) (?)...it's desperately needed.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 12, 2007 4:20 AM

Mr. Spencer, we do know that anyone who asserts you would not debate them, is a liar.
Please take care, and protect yourself out there.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at October 12, 2007 6:11 AM

What SusanP said. Essentially, think of the islamist as a schoolyard bully. He's full of it. The bombast. The bluster. The hectoring. And here's the irony. Underneath, he's a mollycoddled little thing. A real Mama boy. He's always had his way. Always. When someone stands up to him, he's always the first to complain, to blub, to demand justice. It's always the same. Just a bunch of pampered bullies who suddenly aren't getting their way anymore.

Lay into 'em Mr Spencer. Give 'em a good kickin'. Metaphorically of course.

Posted by: ewha1 at October 12, 2007 6:58 AM

Outright and prolific lying is a standard tactic of totalitarian regimes and we can expect more big lies from Islamic fundamentalists as they get more desperate in this internet age of fast communication which they sense is gradually undermining them ideologically. Without widespread Internet censorship their plan of eventual demographic domination (the only really effective plan – terrorism in the West doesn’t really work) & resultant control could be in jeopardy.

Fortunately for the fundamentalists they have an unwitting ally in the large “moderate” or passive Muslim populations whose smiling existence tends to allay fears in the host population of Islamic immigration & birth rate. They expect that the Infidel by his cowardice will forget that it’s always the determined extremists amongst the larger moderate ideological population that seize power.

Posted by: FM at October 12, 2007 10:13 AM

Dear Hugh,

You are incorrect in stating that 60-70 million Hindus were murdered. Thats simply not what Lal said or meant.

What Lal did was to estimate a certain level of population, estimate the growth and then take the difference between the estimated and actual at the end of the Moslem rule. This is always a very dangerous exercise. I majored in Statistics and can tell you with certainty that such exercises give extremely misleading pictures. Firstly, the initial massacres started at around 664 CE. The massacres went on and on till the time Aurangzeb died. So such a figure isn't the count of Hindus murdered. But its a count of "Hindus/Buddhists etc. missing". This would include people dying because the Moslems were building expensive graves like the Taj Mahal and exotic gardens and starving the poor. It would also include the deaths due to disease and so on.

You might say it does not matter. But the problem is that such exercises can be done to point figures at others too. Especially the west. And figures here are more reliable than for the moslem rulers. For instance, the British killed unknown 10's of millions through artificial famines. If a toll of such deaths (by population extrapolation) is made, the British would come close to or surpass the Mohammedans easily. Tyrants like Robert Clive were no better than the emperors who built tombs and graves. Clive retired a multimillionaire.

But what the British did not do was to attempt to destroy Indian culture. Some of them (I can think of Robert Sewell) made important contributions to Indian history. They also gave a railway system, though it can be argued they did it for themselves. Also, they gave India a judiciary and did not persecute Hindus. They did some good. And it wasn't an overall bad record like the Moslems.

But lets get rid of the "murdered 60-70 million Hindus". Shall we?. Will you also admit that the British killed an equal number of Hindus/Moslems or maybe 10-30 million less?. I don't think so !
Will you answer this question honestly?

Also, there was a report in the Guardian recently about millions killed over 10 year period by the British.

You want proof? Take a look at this article
"Robert Clive declared his fortune in 1770 at 400,000 pounds. By the miracle of compound interest, at a 6 percent discount rate, that amounts to $477 billion today. Fairly serious money, roughly the same as India's GDP, and that is just one man's loot."

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/29rajeev.htm

Thats enough to wipe out all poverty from India !
Just one mans loot. They were as bad as the moslem rulers.

Though i disagree with you, Being a first time poster from India, i want to say "Thank you" for all your efforts at combating the great terrorist menace. I also want to sincerely appreciate the work you and Robert are doing. Good luck with everything

Posted by: PhonyIndian123 at October 12, 2007 1:04 PM

I must add something here. Lal took it from 100 CE -1500 CE. While the massacres started earlier to
that, the book did not include it.

But my point still holds. The British were equally
worse. And the figures may not be very accurate
and dont talk about people being murdered

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_Muslim_Population_in_Medieval_India

The book asseses the demographics of India between 1000 CE and 1500 CE. On the basis of the available historical evidence, K.S. Lal concluded that the population of India in 1000 CE was about 200 million and in 1500 CE 170 million. He says however that "any study of the population of the precensus times can be based only on estimates, and estimates by their very nature tend to be tentative

Posted by: PhonyIndian123 at October 12, 2007 1:41 PM

Oh damn !!

>

should read

>

Posted by: PhonyIndian123 at October 12, 2007 1:43 PM

"...I hear there's rumors on the, uh, Internets that I am refusing to debate various Islamic spokesmen..."

Robert, isn't that just like the IslamoFascists to create rumors of rumors?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive... ~ Sir Walter Scott ~

Posted by: hardball at October 12, 2007 9:49 PM

So we have a phony Indian here.

One who objects to 70 - 80 million Hindu's murdered by the RoP.

..." lets get rid of the "murdered 60-70 million Hindus". Shall we?" he sez.

Me thinks your co-religionists already got rid of them, phony Indian.
You wanna get rid of them again?

The Britsh were 'worse'- he tells us, the phony Indian.

Sure. Because the British have a holy book that tells them to kill unbelievers unitl the world is all British.

Now we only have ot find the book, shall we?

Idiot!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 13, 2007 5:56 AM

Robert,

As somebody who doesn't want their wife or daughters to wear burquas, I'll be your wingman!

Fight the good fight the old fashion way, with faith and perserverence.

Posted by: Bob at October 13, 2007 8:36 AM