Robert,

Bravo for not losing it on those fools, I wouldn't blame you if you did. The resort to improbable hypotheticals they brought up as an attempt to equate all religions and avoid the actual Muslim violence in the name of Islam, was just another example of the desperate need of our enemies to avoid the truth about Islam and its Jihad from Ever getting out to the mainstream. They know it'll be the end if it does. And it will be with people like you doing what you do.

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at February 12, 2008 3:50 AM

Bravo Robert - wouldn't it be great to see you do the same sort of thing on the BBC. But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Nokingofmine at February 12, 2008 4:09 AM

What in the world is Manji still doing in that religion? Must be the way she makes her living. I can't fathom any other reason why she'd remain in the mental chains of Mohammed.

Posted by: Bingo at February 12, 2008 4:24 AM

I love Irshad Manji. She has no basis for thinking that Islam can be reformed, no justification for her lifestyle under islam, and does not seem to get it on how women are treated under sharia but she looks so cute being the "Hanoi Jane" of islam.

Posted by: grendel at February 12, 2008 4:28 AM

It's just as well that Richard Spencer couldn't make it. I've heard him speak before and he's too conciliatory.

Posted by: watling at February 12, 2008 4:38 AM

Excuse me, but...

WHAT was that? What the hell was that? Meet brave new Media - even more eager to see Ayaan butchered than the Muslims themselves.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at February 12, 2008 5:25 AM

Abed Ayoub (quietly, to himself): Wait! I'm confused! Is it "Richard" or "Robert"? Which is it? "Richard Spencer"? No, I don't think so. "Robert Spencer"? Is that right? Concentrate, Abed! Concentrate!

Andrea Sanke: Abed? Abed? Are you with us?

Abed Ayoub: Damnit, Andrea! I'm confused! Is it "Richard" or "Robert"?! Help me! I don't know what to do!

Andrea Sanke: Well, you can start by wiping your forehead and sitting upright! And get your facts straight! Buddhists aren't killing anyone! Those are Muslims that have waged a global war against the "infidel"!

Abed Ayoub (pause, and then out of frustration): FOR NOW! Someday, though, it WILL BE the Buddhists! -- hypothetically speaking, of course.

The End.

----

Pathetic.

As for Irshad Manji and her association with Islam, I agree with the other posters. Seriously, how is this intelligent woman a follower of that vile and destructive ideology? What a shame!

Great video!

Posted by: Stronghold at February 12, 2008 5:51 AM

Who is this Abed character? He came across as a high school kid. He successfully got a law degree? Man US law schools must have lowered their standards!

Free speech is ok, but she brought it on herself. (What a crock of baloney, which can be quite tasty by the way), and if costs too much, its her own problem to deal with protection. (unless of course it is radical Bhuddists, in which case he could stand behind that!)

Wow! Could they have found a WORSE spokesperson? My 13 year old nephew debates more intelligently than that!

I am surprised no one rubbed his face in a simple comment. Those threatening her are breaking the law. She is not. It is the job of the police and the government to enforce the law and protect those legally going about their business.

"She knows what she was getting into saying those things". Unbelievable. This is just like women in abusive relationships deserving what they get.

Wow. How overly pathetic!

Posted by: geoffc at February 12, 2008 6:25 AM

Was the mistaken name caption, not some sort of appeasement statement by the French press, as to cow-tow to an future Islamic theory that you were infact a body double, whilst the real Robert Spencer was elsewhere causing the misery and suffering of innocent Muslims worldwide!!.

Posted by: Stone Rose at February 12, 2008 6:38 AM

Excellent job, Robert!

Although Irshad brought up some good points I also can't quite see how she stays with Islam.

As for the other young girl - was it just me or did anyone else have trouble understanding her?

Abed should be a politician. He would be great!
He is really worried about spending taxpayers money - even to save lives. I don't know too many pollies like that/sarc off.

They spend as much of our money as they can get away with.

Posted by: Gramfan at February 12, 2008 6:41 AM

What in the world is Manji still doing in that religion? Must be the way she makes her living. I can't fathom any other reason why she'd remain in the mental chains of Mohammed.

Posted by: Bingo at February 12, 2008 4:24 AM

To resist the violent elements of Islam, from within Islam. Time and again, the non-muslim world expects muslims like Irshad to speak out against biolent elements of Islam, which is exactly what she is doing. Remember, if she left Islam, which would be perfectly understandable and acceptable, we would loose the value of 'muslims speaking out against violent elements of Islam', which is a critical aspect of resisting Jihad. But to answer your question again, ... To resist the violent elements of Islam, from within Islam.

Posted by: Alert at February 12, 2008 6:53 AM

Abid has no valid point to stand up against Irshad's and Robert's points. All Abif had to throw in the debats is 'tav payer mney' and 'hypotheticals'. What a deceptive slithering snake, and a foolish one at that!

Posted by: Alert at February 12, 2008 7:06 AM

There is no visible timer on the video to highlight the segment, but about a third of the way through, the interviewer asks Abed Ayoub the same question she asked Robert Spencer and Irshad Manji, regarding state funded protection for an individual who insults a religious figure.

Andrea: Let's say a US member of Congress stood up and said, "Jesus was a pervert. I believe that he slept with prostitutes, he deserves no respect." What response would you expect from the United States? Is his life therefore threatened by Conservative Christians who felt deeply offended and insulted by this speech. Would you expect the US taxpayer to cover his security?

Spencer: In the first place, the whole scenario is fanciful because Conservative Christians don't generally behave in that way. There is no parallel to Theo Van Gogh in the Christian world. Andres Serrano submerged a crucifix in a jar of urine and it was celebrated as art. He was never under fear of his life and he thrives today. So the scenario itself only points out that in fact there is a problem within Islam that needs to be faced. Getting to the point of the question, certainly, the US government would need to seek out (speak up?) and be willing to protect freedom of speech, otherwise freedom of speech becomes hollow. If any group is place beyond criticism, beyond offense, it becomes a protected class and that cuts to the heart of a pluralistic society in which freedom of inquiry is valued.

Andrea: OK, let me get Abed Ayoub, I would like to get your . ..

Irshad: I would like to

Andrea: Go ahead Irshad

Irshad: I just wanted to quickly make the point . . .off of what Robert just said . . .that in a multicultural world it is very easy to confuse being offended with being discriminated against. The two are not the same. You know, being offended and from time to time, causing offense is the price we pay for living in a diverse society. And if diversity is limited only to race and religion then it's very superficial. Deeper diversity, meaningful diversity also has to be about diversity of opinion and thought.

Andrea: OK, Abed Ayoub, I wanted to put the same hypothetical situation to you as I put to Robert and get your response on that.

Abed: Yes.

Andrea: Go ahead.

Abed: Well, I think that there would be, if a Congressman or Senator just said that during a session, there would be a backlash against them. There would be a few irrate members of any community that gets offended or gets discriminated against, is going to get upset. Should the government foot the bill for his protection? What bothers me is that he brought it upon himself. He knows the ramifications. He knows whats going to happen. Unfortunately, this is what these words are going to do.

The interminable muslim double standard rears it's ugly head time and again. Muslims rage and pillage and burn and molest and murder in the name of jihad for Allah. Muslims and their advocates insist that we cannot criticise Islam because of their behavior as that would imply they brought all this criticism upon themselves.

Rather, taking Abeds response and turn it around - I insist that muslims around the world must recognize that they brought this criticism upon themselves. They must acknowledge that they know the criticism will happen. Muslims must accept that criticism is the minimum response to jihad violence against unbelievers.

Posted by: justamomof4 at February 12, 2008 7:45 AM

It's good for anonymity. It also reduced the death
threats. Muslims looking in the phone book for
Richard Spencer.

Posted by: silent_rage at February 12, 2008 8:07 AM

Why doesnt the USA have long formate discussion about anything? OH look shiny .

Posted by: GrennBeck at February 12, 2008 8:23 AM

Joining the chorus of applause. Well done, Robert!

Posted by: US_infidel at February 12, 2008 8:28 AM

That poor Abed is just boxed in by Islam.

Posted by: GrennBeck at February 12, 2008 8:33 AM

And what on earth is he (Abed) putting on his hair? Looked like he was melting as the debate progressed.

Actually, "progress" is a bit of a non-sequitor here, isn't it. The dialogue seemed to follow the same inevitable pattern: Robert (Richard?) throws in another highly relevant and incontrovertible point of fact (even quotes the Quran for them), and everyone dances around it as if is the Elephant In The Room.

Thank you Robert. I'd happily contribute to a fund to protect you. You're a gem!

Posted by: Kev at February 12, 2008 9:00 AM

Excellent debate and Robert you were truely wonderful you made some great hits, I wish we could see you more of you in Europe.

The issue for Abed Ayoub was very simple, he thinks that Ayaan Hirsi-Ali should be killed or left without protection to be killed because she deserves it for leaving Islam and for being outspoken about Islam, he tried to hide it but that is what he believes.

Irshad Manji focussed on the aspect that started it all, the fact that Ayaan Hirsi-Ali made a film with Van Gogh that dealt with the mistreatment of Islam and that was the reasons for her being threatened and then caused her to really start talking in such a way about Islam. When I see Muslims like her I start to hope, but they are so rare as far as I can see.

Watching Abed Ayoub squirm at the end was priceless as his inner feeling of death to Ayaan Hirsi-Ali couldn't be hidden. He also lost the argument on hypothetical because we all know that it is just that, while the situation is real for critics of Islam.

As for this fund to protect Muslims for speaking out wow, that is a real good thing, I would never have expected that from Europe, I was expecting a fund to help shut people like me up in terms of Islam...

Posted by: Daffersd at February 12, 2008 9:04 AM

.....which is now claiming that some bozo named "Robert Spencer" participated in this debate.

Posted by Robert at 3:05 AM

Confirmed.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 12, 2008 9:05 AM

Shy Guy:

Priceless!

Thanks!

RS

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 12, 2008 9:07 AM

"Islam is what we make of it." - Irshad Manji

How do religious reformers (all religions) con themselves into believe their own rattletrap? Either you follow the religion, as espoused by its original texts, testimonies and ancient interpreters, or you conjure up something totally new out of the blue.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 12, 2008 9:16 AM

What version of the Koran does Irshad Manji have? How can such a rift in "what Islam is" exist? Would love to know how she would explain "slay them wherever you find them", "take not Christians and Jews as your friend" etc. etc.

Posted by: Sounder at February 12, 2008 9:19 AM

Nice hypothetical, watch out for those Budhists !

Regarding Manji, smart lady, but did you notice what she said in her closing statements? She said "Islam is what we make of it". So in other words, it's a dynamic religion, that can bend and be twisted into anything you want to. Well sorry, no dice Manji. She's a nice lady but she's trying to dress up a pig in lipstick.

Good job Robert.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at February 12, 2008 9:25 AM

I can't stand Irshad Manji. No matter what she says, she still worships the pagan moon god.

Posted by: darcy at February 12, 2008 9:25 AM

"some bozo named 'Robert Spencer'"

I presume you full name is a secret because of jihad type reasons. That "bozo" could be Bobby (Bubba) Spencer. If your middle name were Joseph, you could be Bobby Jo Spencer.

Back on point, putting this in terms of money screws up the debate. Now it is merely a fiscal problem. The money issue becomes a wedge that can be used to keep Muslim critics quiet. There are a lot of WASP American voters who share Ayoub's opinion about being careful of what you say.

Ayoub is one of those true-blue Muslims whom we should fear. He may not carry a gun, but he is an enabler, a Muslim and a lawyer.

I was glad to see the issue of violence perpetrated by Buddhists and Jews put down.

Question for Marisol, Is "Mohammedan" a slur?

Posted by: Pelayo at February 12, 2008 9:39 AM

As usual, I find Robert amazing to watch. He cuts right through the B.S. with clear, concise, irrefutable statements of fact.

I was also impressed by Irshad, who I have never seen in action before. (I have just read some quotes, etc). Although I am not a believer that Islam can be reformed without turning it into a new religion entirely, I am encouraged by Irshad.

On the other hand, Amel Boubekeur more often than not did not even answer the questions asked of her, and I don't see that she added anything to this debate.

Then there is the Moslem apologist Abed Ayoub. He just doesn't "get" the idea of free speech. The whole point of having a right to free speech is that you should not have to worry about violent repurcussions to anything you say. The idea that someone doesnt "deserve" protection because they "bring it on themselves" is absurb.

One thing I found interesting... when Irshad and Robert spoke, they looked unwaveringly straight into the camera. No deceit there!

On the other hand... look at Abed Ayoub. During the entire debate he kept looking down, avoiding the camera. And when he did look into the camera, he blinked alot. He LOOKED like he knew he was lieing through his teeth!

But then, war is deceit, right Abed???

I also find it amazing how the moderator, like most Mainstream Media, always tries the moral equivalency card. Well, some Moslems may happen to be violent, but of course that means we can conjecture about Christians and Jews becoming violent. (And Abed takes it further by suggesting violent Buddhists!)

The fact is that Western culture is constantly filled with examples of defamation of Christianity without any violent (or even non-violent) reactions.

If anything, Christians are way TOO complacent about defending their faith! We have become so used to the constant barage of villification from Movies, Television, Schools, etc, that we have generally come to accept it without offering any response whatsoever.

And even when some of the most vile anti-semetic graffiti is scrawled on Jewish tombstones, we don't see the culprits being marked for death by any Jewish groups.

Since 9/11 there have been over 10,000 violent actions taken by Moslems. When was the last time you heard about someone from another religion violently attacking another for their beliefs?

Posted by: StephenDvd at February 12, 2008 9:42 AM

Thanks for the eloquent and insightful contribution, darcy. Now how about another 15-20 more similarly relevant and intellectually stimulating posts from you on this thread, just for good measure.

Posted by: Abu Allah at February 12, 2008 9:48 AM

I must add that Rich...Robert's background of Portsmith NH looked beautiful. I hope you had a nice time there. Very cold lately there.

Posted by: Bingo at February 12, 2008 9:50 AM

“Comic timing”, suspense before delivery of the expected punch line.
” Pregnant pause”, silent moment outside the comedy business, the “that's funny”.

Right before the one minute to close, was a for sure” Pregnant pause”!

I enjoyed it almost as much as when Robert’s laughed at the

” absurd hypothetical Buddhists”.

Speaking of Buddha; I do believe;

The “law of karma” is in pursuit of Islam!

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at February 12, 2008 9:52 AM

"How do religious reformers (all religions) con themselves into believe their own rattletrap? Either you follow the religion, as espoused by its original texts, testimonies and ancient interpreters, or you conjure up something totally new out of the blue." by Shy Guy

Here's how it's done: Study Christianity, chronicle how it's practice has changed over the years and apply it to Islam, if possible. The practice of Christianity today is far different from what was practiced three hundred years ago.

Although reformers do not usually "conjure up" new interpretations. They do find other passages to justify new practices. Example - Christians found ways to abolish slavery based on Biblical texts, even though the Bible has many parts that allow slavery.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 12, 2008 9:58 AM

There is a reason that Abed doesn't want security to be paid for. The security detail prevents the righteous execution of the death sentence against all who speak out against islam and bring upon themselves death threats by muslims.

Personally I don't like the idea of tax money going to pay for security of individuals who speak their mind. But then if islam wasn't so thin-skinned there would be no need for this type of security. So, unfortunately, it is needed for those who attain international attention when they engage in their right to free speech.

I am listening to the discussion while I write this post. And I just got to the infamous Buddhist hypothetical. Bravo Robert. Bravo on not allowing this idiotic hypothetical to be put forth without a proper response. He was eventually able to finish it, but the damage was done. Hypotheticals are best left to science and historical debate groups, not current affairs.

Posted by: Kevin at February 12, 2008 10:07 AM

Lol, I love your sense of humor, Robert.

May you and yours always stay healthy and safe.

Posted by: DJM at February 12, 2008 10:12 AM

Here's how it's done: Study Christianity

Posted by: Pelayo at February 12, 2008 9:58 AM

I don't have to. I can just peek back 200 years and see how the farce known as Reform Judaism came about. Same for its later deviant with the misleading name of Conservative Judaism. It's only conservative compared to Reform. Posted by: Shy Guy at February 12, 2008 10:15 AM

Shy Guy, I'm sure glad Christians found a way around the rules and laws contained in Leviticus. If we can apply modern medicine to cure leprosy instead of killing birds, then there might be hope to change Islam. Did Jesus preach that Christians could ignore all the old laws or just the ones he specifically spoke about.

Would anyone out there agree that Christianity is the original Reformed Judaism?

Will it take an Islamic Messiah to reform Islam? Then only a fraction will follow, and we will still be confronted with about 800 million true believers.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 12, 2008 10:32 AM

The woman in red was an apostate if I ever heard one. No headscarf either, where's her respect.
She actually said that it was Hirsi-Ali's 'right' to leave Islam. I thought I heard groaning from Mohammad's grave. Poor Abed was outclassed on all fronts.
I could not hear the other woman. The moderator was a dullard. I guess that's French TV, what dumb questions. This 'debate', would have been child's play for Richard Spencer, who was too drunk to show up, but his replacement Robert did a great job of out witting the witless.
The great debate...what a joke, Islam has no intention of losing any debates with infidels, (although they loose them all the time, like this one), and the strict fundamentalist have no intention of loosing any, or having any debates with would be apostate reformers.
These people may mean well, and may sound good, but there will never be a larger internal debate on Islam about reforming. Allah is not willing...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 12, 2008 10:43 AM

Only those that practice taqiyya/kithman tell us that islam can be reformed. Muslims believe the koran should not be rewritten, edited, etc or else they will be doomed to their hades, just like they say that we are doomed because they say our Bible has been changed (which is very convenient so mohammed didn't have to know the bible - whatever he said they just swallowed as the truth).

Now this guy that Robert is debating, abed, doesn't think that the state/country should help people like Hirsi Ali while she lets people know what islam is all about is convenient too. Abed knows that she would be dead very soon if this were the case. And he poopoos what she says - if it were so wrong why do muslims want her dead? Why do they consider her so dangerous?

The ones against helping Hirsi Ali have no problem with all the money that goes to muslims who are buying more bombs (the palestinians), or their own massive muslim welfare recipients.

Posted by: R_not at February 12, 2008 10:55 AM

Shy Guy, I'm sure glad Christians found a way around the rules and laws contained in Leviticus.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 12, 2008 10:32 AM

And Genesis, and Exodus, and Numbers, and Deutoronomy. Christianity doesn't adhere to the Torah.

If we can apply modern medicine to cure leprosy instead of killing birds, then there might be hope to change Islam.

I'm still gonna have chicken for dinner.

Did Jesus preach that Christians could ignore all the old laws or just the ones he specifically spoke about.

Jesus never knew what Christians were. Some guy named Paul invented the concept of tossing everything out the window and believing in Jesus is all you magically need for eternal bliss.

Would anyone out there agree that Christianity is the original Reformed Judaism?

There's something to be said about that but Christianity bears even less resemblence to Judaism than does Reform Judaism, which still clings to many externals.

Will it take an Islamic Messiah to reform Islam? Then only a fraction will follow, and we will still be confronted with about 800 million true believers.

Without fighting back, we won't win. You can simulatenously bombard them with the numerous historical, rational and scripture based refutations that are available in order to thin their ranks but we'll still need to battle. Posted by: Shy Guy at February 12, 2008 10:58 AM

Shy Guy,

I'm Catholic, and am not the least proud or defensive about the historic fact of Christian anti-Semitism. I can accept, from your vantage point, that Orthodox Judaism and Catholic Christianity are irreconcilable in their respective beliefs. I do not accept, however, the idea that Christianity--Catholic or otherwise, necessarily is, or must be, anti-Semitic.

Posted by: John C at February 12, 2008 11:12 AM

Where did I mention or alude to anti-Semitism?

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 12, 2008 11:17 AM

Way off topic or only remotely connected...

From above: Jesus never knew what Christians were. Some guy named Paul invented the concept of tossing everything out the window and believing in Jesus is all you magically need for eternal bliss.

I think Jesus would know perfectly well who Christians were, but he probably was not familiar with the title. Paul invented nothing but he elaborated on a lot. There are people who believe that Paul is the father of Christianity. Getting eternal bliss by magick is a whole encyclopedia in itself. Not suitable subject matter for this site.

Posted by: duh_swami at February 12, 2008 11:18 AM

Oh, and I forgot to add, that there are people who think that Jesus and Paul never actually existed...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 12, 2008 11:21 AM

I think the program anchor was astonished that Irshad Manji was in full agreement with Robert. She stopped her belittling talk of "this woman" (Hirsi Ali) and actually started to listen for a change.

Abed Ayoub kept grasping at the life preserver of taxpayer funding (which the anchor kept tossing to him) but he was clearly overmatched by the logic and good sense of those defending protection for dissidents within and outside of Islam who criticize the faith in some way.

Robert I am curious about what happened in the 12 minute break. What "lively" exchange broke out?

As for Manji, I know she gets under the skin of many here for her defense of Islam as a reformable faith, but that pales by comparison to the fury she provokes among supremacist Muslims. Make no mistake, she is marked for death and must live in fear as well.

All in all an excellent debate (despite the biased moderator) in which reason prevailed for a change.

Posted by: alexon at February 12, 2008 11:25 AM

Abed Ayoub draws a RED HERRING across his tracks--arguing the cost of guaranteeing freedom. This betrays his insincerity--no genuine friend of freedom would hold it so cheap as to be unwilling to pay for it.

Abed Ayoub's unspoken motive is--while paying lip-service to free speech and expression [in reality only according to Islamic norms]--that Ayaan Hirsi Ali joins Theo Van Gogh in falling silent forever, either through death or intimidation.

Posted by: John C at February 12, 2008 11:35 AM

Shy Guy, the Christian Bible contains the Old Testament including Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, plus other Books. The early Christians who approved (canonized)the Bible, included these for a reason. I do not remember any Sunday School teacher explaining this. The first Bible written for mass consumption was the King James version, and it contained the Old Testament.

An example of the importance of the Old Teatament to Christians can be found in the fundamentalist's citing of Leviticus to justify their opposition to laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 12, 2008 11:38 AM

Sorry, Shy Guy,

You didn't--I just wanted to get out-front, that hate and prejudice need not be an inherent part of Christian belief, not even in its origins or historic creeds.

Posted by: John C at February 12, 2008 11:39 AM

Unbelievable.

Abed's point of trying to instill fear on taxpayers to foot the bill on protecting free speech is nothing than financial blackmail to silence the critics of the death cult...otherwise "you are going to get what you deserve".

What in God's name does this have to do with Muslim discrimination? This abed should be a new poster boy for Islam-o-fascism inc®...

Posted by: SoteriA at February 12, 2008 11:55 AM

Way off topic or only remotely connected... by duh_swami

All this got started because of the need for a reformed Islam. How can Islam be reformed? We can find examples of other reformation movements and study them and hope we can use that knowledge to help Muslims reform their religion.

If Islam cannot be reformed for the better, what are the alternatives?

Posted by: Pelayo at February 12, 2008 11:55 AM

Why don't we bill "Islamic Republics" for the cost of protecting the critics of Islam? If these "governments" are using Sharia Law, then they are simply enablers of the terrorism that threatens Ayaan HIrshi Ali. Terrorism has a price tag. Time they paid up.

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 12, 2008 12:03 PM

You are a hard target for aquisition, - - R O B E R T - - R I C H A R D - - H U G H - - H U B E R T -- M A R I S O L -- H U J J A T al-M A H D I -- ? ?

You make the task of enforcing Islamic speech codes SOoo much harder!

Keep up the great work -- Up The Counterjihad!!

Posted by: John C at February 12, 2008 12:04 PM

Mr Abed seems very concerned about the taxpayer and were taxpayers money is going to.

Perhaps he's in the wrong job...

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at February 12, 2008 12:07 PM

Shy Guy, the Christian Bible contains the Old Testament including Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, plus other Books.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 12, 2008 11:38 AM

I know that. I was referring to what you mentioned about Christianity's dropping of Levitcus' rules and laws. I said that Christianity dropped almost every rule in the other 4 books as well.

The early Christians who approved (canonized)the Bible, included these for a reason. I do not remember any Sunday School teacher explaining this.

Because Christianity believes that the Torah is true. They just have to ignore a couple of G-d's fundamentals within it to be able to claim it was abrogated (usefull word).

The first Bible written for mass consumption was the King James version, and it contained the Old Testament.

See Septuagint.

An example of the importance of the Old Teatament to Christians can be found in the fundamentalist's citing of Leviticus to justify their opposition to laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

Yes but the Torah contains 613 commandments, without any permission to cherry pick as one pleases.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 12, 2008 12:07 PM

Pelayo unless Islam edits the Quran wholesale there is no reform...for the Quran itself is responsible for this hideous Jihad. The overwhelming majority of Christians in general have basically understood through out history that Levitical laws had specific context towards the Israelites and not towards them...because the New Testament writings consistently point this out plainly in many different books. Reformation within Christianity required only that believers rigidly submit to what already was written in New Testament scripture.

Islam is beyond reforming. Who in Islam is going attempt to re-write the Quran???

Posted by: SoteriA at February 12, 2008 12:13 PM

The guy kept asking how much are we willing to pay to protect these people --

I would like to remind him that the people we are protecting them from are at WAR with us. How much should we pay? Ask Winston Churchill -- pay any price, bear any burden, etc. WHAT OTHER CHOICE IS THERE?

Oh, and that people shouldn't speak out against Islam and expect others to pay for protecting them -- what, does freedom of speech only belong to the rich or those with infinite resources?

Criminy. This is bad for my blood pressure.

Posted by: Goob at February 12, 2008 12:18 PM

Yes -- if one requires a private army for self-protection in order to speak out against Islam, heh. Doesn't that prove our point beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt?

Posted by: Goob at February 12, 2008 12:25 PM

As much as I am against raising taxes, I think each and every man, woman, and child in this country ought to be sent the bill every month for protection for free speech from Islamofascists. And it ought to go up a little every month too. Perhaps that would help raise awareness of the problem we face. Perhaps people would be more likely to lose patience with the CAIR-type's absurd shenanigans, rather than joining the latest campus fashion craze of wearing the Arafat headdress. Perhaps we could focus a bit better.

Posted by: Goob at February 12, 2008 12:31 PM

We all (most all) conclude that Islam will not be reformed, at least in our lifetimes or the next few hundred years. Now what?

Posted by: Pelayo at February 12, 2008 12:35 PM

I've seen any number of "debates" and three-minute segments on TV news programs like this, which pit a "bona fide," CAIR-type Muslim against non-Muslims. This conversation was in the same mold. Legitimate questions are raised, but the Muslim always throws up a smokescreen, deflects the question, or obfuscates. They don't like to engage the question directly simply because they are trying to rationalize -- offering plausible, but untrue reasons for their beliefs. They are poor public relations spokespersons because they generally persuade none but the uninformed or gullible.

There is seldom any resolution to these "debates" because the Ms. Interlocuter-person is more concerned with getting everyone equally involved, and has little regard for the thread of the argument, or pursuing a single line of questioning wherein the stupid party reveals him-or herself and be refuted. And she changes questions abruptly so that the thread of the argument is usually lost. Her preparation is merely to type up a list of questions for the segment, and try to get through them all in willy-nilly fashion, like she has to catch a train.

Could be worse, though. Alan Colmes bulls his way through his list of contrived questions to interviewees by trying to make himself look smart or clever or witty (an impossible task), but generally only ends up looking foolish.

Posted by: prman at February 12, 2008 12:52 PM

The guy kept asking how much are we willing to pay to protect these people --

Ironically, this is a question that has been raised before by Hugh Fitzgerald on numerous occasions. How much are we willing to pay to protect free speech from angry Muslims? How much are we willing to pay for increased security to protect landmarks and other high profile targets from would-be Muslim Terrorists? How much are we willing to pay in social benefits for polygamous or otherwise huge and ever expanding Muslim families? How much are we willing to pay to sustain the presence, in large numbers, of Muslims in western nations?

Posted by: Abu Allah at February 12, 2008 1:00 PM

Alan who?...I don't think Islam can be reformed.
How can you reform Allah? How, or even why, do you want to reform something that is already perfect?
You are going to 'reform' perfection into what?
Islam should be rejected not reformed...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 12, 2008 1:06 PM

As much as I am against raising taxes, I think each and every man, woman, and child in this country ought to be sent the bill every month for protection for free speech from Islamofascists. - posted by Goob

Actually, the costs to cover such protection should be attained by heavily fining every muslim apologist like Abed each and every time they make statements like that above:

What bothers me is that he brought it upon himself. He knows the ramifications. He knows whats going to happen. Unfortunately, this is what these words are going to do.

~ or if there is violence, penalize the offender and any mosque he associates with.

It's time we made our laws abundantly clear to muslims so that they understand the 'ramifications' of what they say and do.

Period.
Either the muslim population falls in line with the reality of free speech or leave. The West need not accept nor tolerate anymore threats or excuses. When living in the West, follow the laws and rules of the west. Not the other way around.

Posted by: justamomof4 at February 12, 2008 1:16 PM

"Islam is what we make of it." - Irshad Manji

No, its not. Perhaps she can make whatever she wants of it in Canuckistan, where she can live her lesbian lifestyle, but would she have the same freedom in an Islamic environment?

In her case I believe she is simply afraid to come out and declare herself an apostate, because you know what happens then.

But all that crap about her 'feeling secure in her faith' while she is being 'reform-minded' is just that: crap. Because the gates of itjihad are closed, shut since 200 (?) years.

Along with the other female "I don't call them Muslims, I call them radicals'- and Abed 'they are not Muslims, they are from outside the faith'- I mean, what hide, what a chutzpah! We know that these 'radicals' are the good Muslims and that they follow the faith as per Koran & sunnah, as it is taught in the mosques.

But they still lie in your face. How much longer?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 12, 2008 1:17 PM

Muslim writer and feminist..

Ugh.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

All these apologies for Islam and its Moslems recalls a grim meeting of family members after first being presented with the newborn baby:

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

"Sure, it has three arms, but that'll help it handle more in life. Inshalla!"

"That sloping forehead is a sight to see, burt I betcha the other kids will use it as a ramp to jump their die cast cars. It'll be great fund for everybody."

"Good thing the kid is blind. He'd croak if he ever saw himself in a mirror."

"Ahmed, you rotten son-of-a-bitch. Show some respect, for the sake of Allah."

"Ever seen that nut-ball feminist Irshad Manji on TV? All her talk about Islamic feminism and what not, what a dip. My buddy Rasheed sez she got that frizz-ball hair-do from all the surprises she experienced reading the Hadiths. Haa."

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 12, 2008 1:25 PM

Because Christianity believes that the Torah is true. They just have to ignore a couple of G-d's fundamentals within it to be able to claim it was abrogated (usefull word).

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 12, 2008 12:07 PM

***

That's pretty close. The earliest Christians were all practicing Jews. Then they began to proselytize to Gentiles -- which raised a dilemma. Did Gentile converts need to follow Jewish religious law? Church leaders (who at that time were uniformly Jewish) held a council and decided not. (This is all found in Acts 15.)

Not sure how this relates to reform in Islam -- except to point out the differences between Islam and Christianity. They are both proselytizing faiths, but from its inception, Christianity has allowed a certain flexibility. No, it hasn't always been practiced that way, but the texts seem to allow for it.

Posted by: CJ at February 12, 2008 1:36 PM

Robert

Generally, you don't disclose your co-ordinates. What made you make an exception here?

Richard must have been a real Dick not to have shown up, leaving you holding the...

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 12, 2008 1:37 PM

IP:

No worries. I don't mind disclosing where I am when I'm traveling. Last time I did France 24, it was from Charlotte, North Carolina. If I ever do it from my home city, I might ask them not to say where I am.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 12, 2008 1:44 PM

Robert effortlessly obliterates his fellow debaters, as usual.

Some of the comments regarding Manji on this thread are a bit disturbing, however. Manji reserves the right to disagree with Hirsi Ali's position or approach, but lets not make the mistake of assuming that she doesn't damn well know about the inherent problems in Islam.

The point that she made in agreement with Robert is that the protection must be provided because the Islamists use violence to supress free speech and any criticism of their ideology. If free and open criticism and debate cannot occur, then no change can or will be made.

Amel Boubekeur is simply clueless and Abed "she brought it upon herself" Ayoub acted as expected, his inane Buddhist hypotheticals aside.

Sanke, as is typical with "objective" journalists these days,just couldn't help herself and hide her disdain for Hirsi Ali at the end of the debate.

Overall, very well done Robert.

Posted by: awake at February 12, 2008 1:50 PM

Robert,
Finally, you got enough airtime to make your case. I've seen you on several other "interviews" where you've been cut off, or not given the opportunity to followup.

Especially liked when you specifically quoted the Qur'anic verse; apostates must be killed. However, as usual, this statement was ignored by the participants. Why didn't the host ask Abed Ayoub if this verse was indeed accurate, and if it was, then why he was claiming that terrorist killings had "nothing to do with Islam?".

In Abed Ayoub's world, Jihadists will kill you if you criticise Islam, just as sure as the sun will rise and you cannot stop either from happening.

Posted by: Xero G at February 12, 2008 2:02 PM

The question that needs to be asked is not whether we should offer Ayaan Ali Hirsi, or anybody else like her, protection from the murderous cult of Islam, but why we don't protect our society from the cult that wants to destroy it.

But while we are debating, they have already succeeded.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 12, 2008 2:35 PM

At least they spelled your website correctly, Richard (my son is named, Richard!), I mean Robert! :-)

We all need to be praying for Robert's protection every single day!!

Seeing his face posted on this thread reminds me of the enormous risks he takes by placing himself on the front line of this war on terror in his efforts to get the Truth about Islam out there. How many of us are willing to post our names and faces on this forum? Not suggesting that we do. No! But seeing his face and his name on display serves to remind me of how important it is to pray for his protection.

We have your back, Robert!

Posted by: champ at February 12, 2008 2:39 PM

Hirsi Ali should be protected, but there's still a problem. Protection shouldn't be only for her, but for any and all, known or unknown....but then how do you afford to give everyone who may need it, around the clock protection?

This is such a waste of money....if we didn't let the Mohammadans live behind enemy lines, there wouldn't be a need for this sort of thing.

How can we possibly pay for security for everyone....I don't know Robert Spencers situation, but why shouldn't he have (if he doesn't already I simply don't know) the same protection as Ali....or Rushdie ... also?

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at February 12, 2008 2:46 PM

awake writes,

Some of the comments regarding Manji on this thread are a bit disturbing, however. Manji reserves the right to disagree with Hirsi Ali's position or approach, but lets not make the mistake of assuming that she doesn't damn well know about the inherent problems in Islam.

I don't think that's true. Manji argues in her book that the problems we see today aren't "inherent" in Islam, but rather that these problems are based on certain interpretations, and that a reopening of ijtihad would lead to a better version of Islam.

What she does not do is explain how even if the Islamic community could re-open the doors of ijtihad, how doing so would lead to different interpretations of 4.34, 33.21, 9.5, 9.29, 5.33, oh, and several thousand more "troublesome" Qur'anic verses and hadith. Maybe she has in mind Taha's approach (of Sudan)? Her book didn't say; maybe she's said something since?

Posted by: kamala at February 12, 2008 2:50 PM

I enjoyed watching the debate & thought Irshad Manji was very good in what she said (as well as Robert, of course). I was then a little surprised & offended (if one may still use that word) to see all the criticism heaped upon her in these comments. Just because she wants to live her life in freedom, etc, I think it is a little harsh to say that if she still calls herself a Muslim there is something seriously wrong with her (or whatever various words were used). Many people identify with a certain religion, group, "family", or other entity even though they might not agree with it in some or many areas, or believe that it needs some reform. Just because she still wants to be known as a Muslim, I see no reason to condemn her. She may change her mind in time, but meanwhile, please let her keep speaking as she is (without trashing her), because lots of people may listen to her more than they would a "bigoted Christian", and what she is saying is right and reasonable in regards to freedom of speech. I understand the problem that it possibly lulls people into thinking that Islam is very reform-able, however, I still think her voice may help in many instances, as I think it did in the debate. She also seemed to have the ability to speak out very strongly without fear of being labeled an "islamophobe", which is very helpful sometimes, and she was very intelligent and articulate. Why she wants to remain in Islam may be mysterious, but probably no more so than why some of us believe the Bible & some think it is total foolishness, and everything in between.

Posted by: thatisall at February 12, 2008 3:36 PM

Robert, you should have this:
"PA TV Bunny Rabbit Threatens to 'Eat the Jews'
The latest TV character created to incite PA children to anti-Semitism, Islamic triumphalism and violence has debuted on a popular show."

And, You should have a list of all the PA TV shows and the homicidal maniacs and the homicidal hatreds.... and from Iran, and from Syria, and copies of the textbooks in all the muslim countries so that that lying lawyer can't pretend it's people who aren't muslims, because not only IS it muslims, but MUSLIM countries and MUSLIM leaders, and the MUSLIM PROPHET, and the MUSLIM book(s) and that's why no other religion does any of this.

The politeness we engage with the appeasers among us, and them has gone on frankly, long enough.... how dare that lawyer quibble about a women who was threatened with annihilation, amongst hundreds so threatened by official Islam, and muslims.

Mark

Posted by: mgoldberg at February 12, 2008 3:37 PM

Amusing to see how often Abed Ayoub was looking down reading his papers on how to respond, what to say, not to say... He couldn't answer any of the questions posed to him without going back to his prescripted notes.

I almost felt sorry for Ayoub....the host had to step in to save him which was also very amusing, infact, just about everything out of Ayoubs mouth was amusing.

Robert, hypothetically speaking, watch out for those Budhists !

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at February 12, 2008 5:06 PM

Gee, I can't seem to find a copy of Zen and the Art of Open-Ended Warfare Against Unbelievers anywhere...

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 12, 2008 5:10 PM

Is it appropriate for reporters to called Mohammed the "prophet" and not the "Islamic Prophet"?

Posted by: sh217 at February 12, 2008 5:17 PM

please let her keep speaking as she is (without trashing her), because lots of people may listen to her more than they would a "bigoted Christian", and what she is saying is right and reasonable in regards to freedom of speech. I understand the problem that it possibly lulls people into thinking that Islam is very reform-able, however, I still think her voice may help in many instances, as I think it did in the debate. She also seemed to have the ability to speak out very strongly without fear of being labeled an "islamophobe", which is very helpful sometimes, and she was very intelligent and articulate. Why she wants to remain in Islam may be mysterious, but probably no more so than why some of us believe the Bible & some think it is total foolishness, and everything in between.
Posted by: thatisall

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Whether you like it or not there is something called the "truth" on this subject. She would be labeled far worse than a isamophobe by her fellow muslims, thats the point. As far as the bigoted Christian, that just shows your bigotry.

Your other phrase of
what she is saying is right and reasonable in regards to freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech usually has nothing to do with what is right or reasonable. It is just the method that we have to project our ideas. Your last statement also reveals a common yet wrong idea. The truth is not what people believe it to be. Truth, stands on its own and is not subject to our opinion.

Personally I don't know that much about her. I do know a few things about Islam. As far as I can tell she is either one, ignorant of its teaching or two, knows some of them and foolishly thinks she can reform it, or three she knows them very well and is practicing "taqiyya". She does have her right to her position, however if I ever meet her I would tell her she is very wrong in her stance and belief.

Proverbs 30:12
There are those who are pure in their own eyes but are not cleansed of their filth.

الأمثال 30:12
وهناك اولئك الذين نقيه في بأم العين ولكنها ليست تطهيرها من القذاره.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 12, 2008 5:21 PM

Robert Spenser and Irshad Manji are terrific. However, I have a question. Why have western nations degenerated to the point where individuals need protection in western nations for exercising their God given rights to freedom of speech? That sort of government protection has been traditionally used for people speaking out against organized crime rings.

Posted by: sh217 at February 12, 2008 5:33 PM

Well done, Robert. This was the best televised presentation I've ever seen you do, and that's partly because you had more time than you are usually given to articulate your views. Your spontaneous, gently wicked laughter in response to the attorney's reference to Buddhists as possible aggressors was cathartic. You are becoming more effective as a presenter, and more telegenic. Congratulations, and bravo.

Posted by: commonsense at February 12, 2008 7:01 PM

Im.mad.as.HELL... You greatly misunderstood me, so I am afraid that I was very unclear in what I wrote... which I am sorry for as well as feeling that I should respond a little bit, at least.

First and foremost, I put "bigoted Christian" in quotes PRECISELY because it is what would be SAID (BY OTHERS) of a so-called islamophobic Christian, NOT because I think that person would actually BE a bigot for pointing out the evils of Islam. Perhaps my use of quotation marks was not very clear communication.

As far as freedom of speech, it means that a person can say pretty much whatever they want - it doesn't have to be the truth. My point was that what she said ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH ITSELF was right and reasonable. I did not address whether what she said ABOUT ISLAM was true or not. I actually DO KNOW that there is such a thing as absolute truth. Also, I realize that true-to-their-own-holy-book-Muslims would NOT consider her a Muslim at all, but a terrible apostate, but I was thinking more of general ignorant liberal or other types who might pay more attention to her than to a real Christian, who they wouldn't trust & would see as having more "islamophobic" motivation.

What I meant about people believing the Bible or not is that we often do not understand others' motivation for believing as they do, if we do not agree. So just because we do not understand why she chooses to remain a nominal Muslim (for now at least) doesn't necessarily mean that she is a complete idiot that we should never agree with about anything. I thought she did a good job, and I hope the apostate-police don't hunt her down. I wish more & more Muslims would take her stand, even if they choose to still call themselves Muslims.

Posted by: thatisall at February 12, 2008 7:18 PM

Great speech, Richard!

Posted by: Goob at February 12, 2008 9:13 PM

@thatisall

Noted on your reply. I may have been over reacting. You are correct in that she may have more credibility to some. We do need to be willing to appeal to the widest audience possible without compromising the basics of the issue.

I have become sensitive to PC and thought I sensed that in your reply. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 12, 2008 9:17 PM

So the French are snidely referring to Robert Spencer as a "bozo" (assuredly not least because he happens to be an American).

This at a time when liberty, that most precious of human gifts is about to be taken away from the world with collusion by the French themselves by dint of their own hand (and sheer stupidity). Unimaginable hubris!

Just what I suspected: The Froggies' brains have gone a'missin.'

Posted by: pythagoras at February 12, 2008 9:32 PM

Pythagoras,

No, no, that wasn't the French, that was me, referring to myself. All in good fun.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 12, 2008 9:36 PM

I guess Theo van Gogh "brought it on himself" and should should have paid for his own police force. Ayaan Hirsi Ali will be murdered too if she doesn't get the protection that Theo needed.

Posted by: Frank at February 12, 2008 10:53 PM

Posted by: kamala at February 12, 2008 2:50 PM

Kamala,

Point taken, and I admit that the choice of the word "inherent" in my response, stating Manji's position, was incorrect. As far as I know, she has not waivered on that point.

That being said, her usefulness in that debate, defending free speech, and to take away the right of refusing free speech and criticism solely on the grounds of being offended, Manji certainly did well.

Maybe she chooses to attract a different crowd of supporters, ones that Robert will seemingly never reach, regardless of what her true internal beliefs may be?

Hopefully.

Regards,

awake

Posted by: awake at February 12, 2008 10:58 PM

justamomof4 quoted:
"Andrea: Let's say a US member of Congress stood up and said, "Jesus was a pervert. I believe that he slept with prostitutes, he deserves no respect."

The difference here is Jesus was not a pervert who slept with prostitutes. However, say something like, "Mohammad was a child molester and a murderer" and it's just fact.

It's not about being offended. Anyone can claim to be offended by anything. If we're going to go about life with the goal to never offend anyone in any way, then we're going to have to hide under the bed and never interact with anyone, ever again. (Which, in itself, may offend people - especially those supporting you, since you wouldn't be able to hold a job!)

We cannot look at things simply from the subjective viewpoint of the person being offended. We have to look at things from the objective viewpoint of whether or not the thing being said is actually true.

Posted by: Mo at February 12, 2008 11:01 PM

Robert-I thought that your presentation was excellent, as was Irshad Manji's. The ADC lawyer was awful, just awful. (I usually don't like to criticise people in these cases without mentioning specific points, but since Robert and Irshad refuted his inane statements so well, I feel no need to rewrite them here.) And I say this as someone who was very critical of you and of this site until fairly recently.

Posted by: margheri at February 13, 2008 12:25 AM

An overused quote

"I may not agree with what you say, but ill defend your rights to say it"

Or something to that affect. If for instance we have a critic on canablism who is the targeted for assasination by North Korea should that person be afforded the security they need or should they be left for the slaughter. The ritual slaughter idea is something that Muslims seem to embrace,especially when it comes to Matyrdom tactics.

My opinion is that Mrs Hirsi Ali should be given protection and should also be engaged in debate more often. Her experiences are of extreme importance at this perticular point in time.Why wasnt she not safe in the Muslim community when her ordeal was going on,why did she need to flee? Its impeeding to any development in Somalia if she gets burried in the media and in the pyhsical sence.

Of course this comes down to a money issue but maybe she will find herself in an occupation that already requires security!

If according to that chap on the pannel sheltering the abused no longer becomes finacially acceptable cause why is the west still outreaching daily to Muslim majority countries.I read a blog from Shiekyermama about a family of 12 'Muslims' both parents unemployed and all living off the welfare system. In total the family were better off for not working. In the fathers past-times he worked on a political party (NPO) which of course propogated the idea of Islam in Britain.

Madness!?!

Thats the big question I really.

Posted by: OLDEngland at February 13, 2008 12:31 AM

"This is such a waste of money....if we didn't let the Mohammadans live behind enemy lines, there wouldn't be a need for this sort of thing."

You have a point. I'm sick of knowing that I can't speak my mind for fear of death threats. It comes down to this: how do we identify and remove radicals with violent intentions before any actual crime has been committed? Isn't that 'thought crime'?

Irshad and like-minded reformists should get on with creating a clearly identifiable non-political, non-islamist Reformed Islam that truly moderate muslims would surely be happy to join. Unreformed, islamist islam could be pronounced a violent cult/ideology and banned in countries that ban similarly violence-minded parties and cults. People who don't want to reform could receive help in emigrating to sharia-based countries, and they could be happy there.

Apart from taqiyya, that could separate the sheep from the wolves.

Posted by: Lili at February 13, 2008 1:08 AM

Ayaan Hirsi-Ali is not only a very brave woman, she is a symbol of resistance to Islamic intimidation and violence. If she is killed then how many more like her are waiting in the wings? Precious few if any. She MUST be protected at any cost! And even more important is to uproot and DESTROY those supremacist Muslims, particularly the ones among us in the West, who exploit our freedoms to advance their violent, repressive agenda. Unfortunately we'll need to break some eggs to accomplish this omelet, but it will be well worth the effort. We must not allow Supremacist Islam to take root in the West as it is doing now.

Posted by: alexon at February 13, 2008 1:15 AM

Easy:
Stop sending money to the "palestinians" and any other country run by violent thugs.

Use the money to protect the likes of Ms. Hirsi Ali.

Not hard.

Posted by: Wookieelips at February 13, 2008 1:39 AM

Thank god that the islamophobe Roobart Sbunsar didn't show up instead of Richard... would've been awful.

Most fun... especially how Irshad agrees with almost everything we believe about free speech and free will, yet stubbornly clings on to her private islam being "ijtihad"-able.

She can be paraphrased as saying that islam is moderate but muslims are immoderate... I believe quite the opposite.

Posted by: Jsingleton at February 13, 2008 1:53 AM

I just find it amazing and quite ironic that Irshad Manji still clings to her Muslim faith yet also makes no secret that she's gay (and subject to execution under Shariah law).

Posted by: Xero G at February 13, 2008 3:02 AM

Thanks for the eloquent and insightful contribution, darcy. Now how about another 15-20 more similarly relevant and intellectually stimulating posts from you on this thread, just for good measure.

Posted by: Abu Allah at February 12, 2008 9:48 AM

LOL! Sorry I missed you yesterday, Abu.

Of course you worship the non-existent pagan moon god, allah, too. Oh, and that's relevant and intellectual as all-get-out, by the way. Anyone who actually thinks allah is real hasn't got their neurons firing. Like you.

Posted by: darcy at February 13, 2008 8:57 AM

An overused quote

"I may not agree with what you say, but ill defend your rights to say it"

Well, that's the great Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

IMO, can't be used enough, as it's called "Free Speech."

Posted by: darcy at February 13, 2008 9:06 AM

Thank you, Robert. I stand corrected.

Posted by: pythagoras at February 13, 2008 2:27 PM

Through out this program Abed Ayoub repeatedly returns to the issue of taxpayers funding the protection of those faced with credible threats as if it were a legitimate point for debate. He misdirects our attention.

Paying to protect outspoken individuals is not the issue here. When those individuals' lives (and worse) are threatened by extremists, their cases serve as society's methylene blue that shows up the real danger. Mr. Ayoub knows this and endeavors to divert our concern.

It is clear that the threats those individuals face are illegal but the discourse that precipitates them is not. Point and Match! Of course we taxpayers should pay because it is truly the taxpayers that are being protected from tyranny and suppression! There is no ambiguity.

Discussing whether, or how much, to fund is based on the flawed assumption that it is someone else's problem other than the taxpayer. The truth is that if inalienable rights and basic freedom are threatened it is NEVER somebody else's problem - it is 100% ours. We'd all do well to pay gladly.

Abed Ayoub would have us spending our cycles arguing what price is too much to pay for our children's future.

Shame on him - and him a lawyer too!

Posted by: zoundman72 at February 14, 2008 5:19 AM