| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
I've had the honor of speaking at an event with John Lewis. He is a superb speaker with a meticulously reasoned and researched message. And when I read this piece about the kind of questioning he got at Georgia Tech, I had an overwhelming sense of deja vu -- this is exactly, in every detail, the kind of questioning I generally get when I speak on college campuses and in other venues also.
"Memoirs of a 'Criminal Mind': Georgia Tech, March 13, 2008," by John David Lewis at The Objective Standard (thanks to all who sent this in):
On March 13, I gave my talk “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism” to an audience of about forty at Georgia Institute of Technology. In the talk, based on my article in The Objective Standard, I rejected all forms of theocracy, but emphasized the danger posed by the Islamic state and argued for the destruction of its most obvious manifestation, the regime in Iran. I was prepared for opposition to the idea of war with Iran, and I acknowledged up front that those who recognize that religious law is wrong might disagree with my conclusion that a war against the Iranian state is necessary. But I was not prepared for the strident defense of Islamic law and jihad—and for the condemnation of me for even raising the issue of Islamic jihad—that was to come.The onslaught began with the first “question,” actually a monologue that lasted nearly fifteen minutes. The monologist claimed that: (1) there is a long history of separation of church and state in Islam; (2) Islamic law is good; (3) whenever imposed, Islamic law has brought peace; (4) jihad is a “wonderful idea” and does not mean war; (5) Islamic Totalitarianism poses no threat, since 500 million Muslims reject terrorism; (6) the tax leveled against subjugated peoples is just, because they are protected by Muslims in return; (7) I am “ignorant of history” if I do not acknowledge the “truth” of these claims.
I listened to him without interrupting—and even asked a legitimately annoyed member of the audience to allow him to finish—so that he could fully reveal himself. In answer, I re-read a series of quotes in which Islamic leaders—as well as a young girl on Lebanese television—call for jihad, war, and death; and I pointed out to the monologist that he must be quite angry at these Muslims for their incorrect view of jihad. But instead of being angry at those who give his presumably peaceful religion a bad name, he condemned me for reading their quotes. This is evasion par excellence—to condemn those who raise Islam’s violent past and present rather than have to face the fact that the vision of idyllic peace that one associates with one’s religion has no basis in reality.
(I at least got a good laugh out of this exchange when I concretized the meaning of the tax on subjugated peoples. Suppose a Mafia thug came to your door, I said, and he offered to protect you for, say, $100 a month. You would ask the thug, “From whom do I need protection?” to which he would reply: “Us.”)
Following this was more of the same: combinations of Islamic apologizing and ad hominem attacks. I was told, for instance, that I could not possibly understand Iran if I had never been there myself. By this standard, history as such is impossible; no one today can know what it was like a decade, a century, or a millennium prior to his birth. But the apologists have no problem suspending this standard for themselves when it serves their purposes, in this case to glorify Mohammad (“a peaceful man”) and 7th-century Arabia.
But one “questioner” in particular stands out: After reading a sentence from my article Notes on the Near Eastern Roots of Islam, with no context or explanation for the audience to even understand what it meant, he attacked me by saying that I should remember “logic” and the fact that I was at a “scientific” school before making statements such as those that I had made. But rather than explain to me what was illogical or unscientific about my views—let alone ask a question in the question period—he continued his ad hominem attack by stating that my views were so obviously wrong that only a “criminal mind” (a phrase he repeated) could have come up with them. Again, he never stated what was wrong with my quote, never established any reasons for his conclusion, and never asked me to clarify my reasoning—he took his assertion of the “criminality” of my mind as a self-evident fact.
On the face of it, the “scientific logic” he employed was nothing more than arbitrary name-calling—obviously a cherished technique by his “method.” But what motivated his calling me a “criminal mind”—twice?
The topic of my talk was theocracy and Islamic law. Islamic governments, as ideological states founded on claims to divine revelation, must jail—or worse—those who speak out against the clerics. This was the thug’s ideal: In lieu of rationally demonstrating the “truth” of his beliefs, he would criminalize me, or jail me, or perhaps kill me, to stop the spread of ideas contrary to his. In Iran, this ideal has already been achieved; there I would have been arrested, condemned, and thrown into solitary confinement. But in America, the thug’s ideal is frustrated; without the power of the law to silence me he was reduced to name-calling....
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at March 23, 2008 9:22 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
>>On the face of it, the “scientific logic” he employed was nothing more than arbitrary name-calling—obviously a cherished technique by his “method.” But what motivated his calling me a “criminal mind”—twice? --from article
I've been talking lately about the use of name-calling as a weapon meant to intimidate, silence and muzzle.
Since the usual favorites of "racist/bigot/hater" are being overused and so neutralized, a new hate-filled name is needed. Perhaps we'll start hearing "criminal mind" as the new name meant to imtimidate, silence, and muzzle.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 23, 2008 10:16 AM
The willing suspension of disbelief, the credulity of those who would accommodate the Religion of Peace alarms me; alarms me as much as the intolerance and the closed minds of its advocates and practitioners do.
Posted by: John C at March 23, 2008 10:29 AM
Apparently there is no fitna the movie.
from http://www.fitnathemovie.co.uk/ :"It should be fairly obvious by now that there is no "Fitna" movie. No movie to insult Islam or Muslims or anyone else for that matter..."
There is also a muslim dating service ad on the site now.
Happy Easter all.
dT
Posted by: rubicon220 at March 23, 2008 10:38 AM
At all such meetings on campus, the campus police should be much in evidence. The college itself should tape, and if possible videotape, the proceedings. All speakers will then know that what they say will be recorded. The tape can be played in classes, and there subject to analysis. Furthermore, while such tapiing is unlikely to inhibit those who offer rational responses, whether pro or con, the usual hysterical responders may be inhibited, believing that they may suffer consequences in obtaining, or retainiing, student visas, green cards, or even citizenship. Let them be so inhibited. Their attempts to block all rational discussion of Jihad and the meaning, and menace, of Islam, needs to be curbed. That is one way to do it.
Indeed, if John Lewis does have a tape of this event, he should put it up at YouTube. There should be a whole series of such tapes, under the rubric "Muslim Attempts To Shout Down, Or Shut Down, All Discussion of Islam."
It may be the fastest-growing part of YouTube, and possibly the most useful.
Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 10:38 AM
Sounds like the usual muslims in the audience, there to fight for islam with their 'tongue and teeth'. The 'questions' are always monologues. A prepared speech.
Posted by: Borg at March 23, 2008 10:49 AM
What's with those Muslim-dsting-site ads, anyway? I saw it on Daniel Pipe's website recently, too.
Sooooo disappointing.
(Digging for an answer there, the best I could figure out is that website owners contract with services who then sell space to advertisers, thereby giving up control of content. I can't imagine doing that!)
Posted by: Vee at March 23, 2008 11:03 AM
The speaker was going up against people with preconceived ideas, or 'walls', if you will, that must all be broken down, before the speaker can get through to said people. Unfortunately for the speaker, this is not typically something which can be achieved in one speech alone. Muslims in particular, are those whom have often spent their entire lives following Islam and being taught these falsities and fallacies by other Muslims. It's also very hard for them to reject something which has been at the core of their entire lives. One might say that it is comparable with being told that your entire life is a computer-simulation, in The Matrix. It's often 'that' hard to convince a Muslim.
Posted by: Rogster at March 23, 2008 11:08 AM
All apologists for Islam do is make speeches. They do not answer questions or reply to what you say. This indicates to me that we have won the argument. It is also a technique of the sociopath to never take responsibility for his/her actions or behaviors.
Posted by: tanstaafl at March 23, 2008 11:12 AM
A fifteen minute monologue presented by an unidentified student who reflects the obvious of course. Such amazing patience was demonstrated by speaker John Lewis to the chagrin of no doubt many in this small audience of 40. One can't help feeling that after having endured the monologue by this apparent student, many in the audience will take the time to evaluate the truths that are presented and began to reach their own conclusions as to what is factual. Might they have witnessed a microcosm
of the looming clash of civilizations within this monologue and John Lewis's presentation?
The most striking of the mostly false presentation by the monologist is that of number 5, "Islamic Totalitarianism poses no threat, since 500 million Muslims reject terrorism". That may be the terrible the truth. Gee what happen to the figures of from 1 to 10 pct. Now in his mind 60 pct of muslims support terrorism or around 725 million Muslims, and that is heart warming to hear.
Posted by: Mackie at March 23, 2008 11:21 AM
I went to the GT newspaper called the Technique. There is no comments section after articles. So, you read (painfully) an idiotic PC article about Islam Awareness Week, and no one can comment. But, hey, great news! A Mohammedan is coming from Princeton to speak on "The Gospel of Jesus According to Mohammed." Aren't you relieved, now?
Posted by: darcy at March 23, 2008 11:36 AM
OT. Fitna the Movie:
I am not sure how authentic this is, I got the link from LGF.
I am downloading now, quite a slow connection, but working so far.
52 Mb torrent file.
http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Geert-Wilders-FITNA-rar/4324a513c7e23953333274411274df78267c29618375
uTorrent download
Posted by: pr126 at March 23, 2008 11:43 AM
"The college itself should tape, and if possible videotape, the proceedings."
by Hugh
Where's C-SPAN when you need them? The country should see such proceedings rather than have to look at someone at a podium in an empty room.
Happy Easter to all!
Posted by: PMK at March 23, 2008 12:01 PM
One should keep in mind that at such lectures concerning Islam, when the “questioners” are disruptive, insulting and making no sense at length, that they may well be just paid disrupters. An old technique.
No one questioner should not be allowed to disrupt this way with name calling under the pretense of a question for more than a minute before he gets escorted out. This must be a requirement on the audience.
at March 23, 2008 12:08 PM
My link in my previous post about the "Fitna the Movie" could be a hoax.
The film has not been released yet, at least not officially.
I have stopped download.
Caveat Emptor.
at March 23, 2008 12:15 PM
(1) there is a long history of separation of church and state in Islam;
since when
(2) Islamic law is good; (3) whenever imposed, Islamic law has brought peace;
ya you obey it in islamic countrys or your dead and theres nothing more at peace than the dead
(4) jihad is a “wonderful idea” and does not mean war;
1700 years of history and war say diferent
(5) Islamic Totalitarianism poses no threat, since 500 million Muslims reject terrorism;
they say there ar 1.5 billion muslims so only one in 3 reject terrorism
(6) the tax leveled against subjugated peoples is just, because they are protected by Muslims in return;
ya from the muslims the mafia would love this scam
at March 23, 2008 12:16 PM
As a Georgia Tech alumnus, I apologize for the treatment that Dr. Lewis received in Atlanta. I'm disappointed that rules of discussion were not enforced by security and only civilized discussion allowed. I'm glad that he safely survived the encounters, and I hope that those involved are considered persons of interest in the production of the explosives that were later found - one of which detonated and injured a worker. see: http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=70306
Little has been made of this incident but it is a natural spin off of the blind faith exhibited by those who insulted Dr. Lewis.
If we continue to be blind to the stupidity of multiculturalism and do not defend the Western values of reason, free speech, property rights, and separation of church and state, we encourage this blind submission to faith. As Ayn Rand observed, "When men give up reason and freedom, the vacuum is filed by faith and force."
at March 23, 2008 12:34 PM
http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Geert-Wilders-FITNA-rar/4324a513c7e23953333274411274df78267c29618375
its a fake buy dutch lrft wingers a bunch of songs
at March 23, 2008 12:51 PM
These mindless mobs of Muslim apologists should be called "MUSBOTS."
We know they exist - now, where the heck did they come from? Who is brainwashing all these MUSBOTS? (The same oil money that has empowered the Muslim fanatics in the first place?)
I am a traditional "liberal," but I am immune to this MUSBOT programming - why am I immune, while they are susceptible? Is there some defect in them that they cannot see the lies they so mindlessly and robotically repeat? (Muhammad was a "PEACEFUL MAN?!")
And the next question is, of course, how do we defeat these MUSBOTS in their total ignorance and idiocy? There seem to be HORDES of them everywhere you turn. (One of the biggest and worst gatherings of MUSBOTS that I've seen is on tribe.net - shudder!)
Posted by: Suziq at March 23, 2008 12:52 PM
A disappointing but totally expected article.
Most Muslims only know the Pagan ideology of the 6th century. They were never exposed to the Ten Commandments. They do not know what is good or what is bad. They were never exposed to "love thy neighbor" espoused by Christianity. Love is found no where in the Koran or Hadith.
You are what you eat.
You are what you are taught.
Posted by: paulc37 at March 23, 2008 12:58 PM
I can easily accept the idea that the world is divided between the forces of darkness and light. We see good and evil all around us -- both in invididuals and whole nations. For people to believe that they must struggle against the temptation to do evil is not a bad thing, it is a good thing.
What makes Islam unique, is that it is evil masquarading as good. It want's to impose darkness on the world, and call it light.
Posted by: rational at March 23, 2008 1:02 PM
Iran is ruled by a mafia, cloaking its thuggery in religion. Judging by the pass they get from the naive, it's a pretty good racket!
Posted by: jewdog at March 23, 2008 1:06 PM
Happy Easter!
Posted by: champ at March 23, 2008 1:13 PM
You filthy Kufir's just don't get it, a 'criminal mind' is one that rejects Islam, or does not accept Islam, or opposes Islam, or exposes Islam.
All kufr's are 'criminals' because they are urged by mental criminality. The biggest criminality is disbelief in Allah. Followed in rapid fire, with disbelief in the Prophet, and 'Shirk'.
These three are the trinity of the Kuffar's 'criminal mind'. All criminal minds reside in dar al_harb. There are no criminal minds in dar al-Islam. In fact, it seems to me, that there are no minds in Islam at all, criminal or otherwise. There is brain function, but no mind seems to be in operation. Muslims then by definition are 'absent minded'. This is probably why they have to memorize the Quran and pray five times a day. If not for this ritualistic structure, they would forget all about it. This is not designed to contact Allah, it is to keep believers in the flow, lest they forget.
The biggest crime a believer can commit is to forget about Allah. The biggest crime a kufir can commit is to not believe in Allah to begin with.
I fall in with the criminal mind crowd, my mother was right all along...Happy Easter all you criminals...
at March 23, 2008 1:17 PM
Rp:
Very good points; Might there be a connection here
in regards to this undated article?
http://atlanta.about.com/od/newspaperstvradio/a/gaterrorists.htm
Posted by: Mackie at March 23, 2008 1:27 PM
This Easter I think it is important that we reach out to our truly religious and observant Muslim neighbors and offer them our hands. This contact with an infidel defiles them and then they have to do a whole wash-up before they can pray.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 23, 2008 1:45 PM
Cali, Cali, Caliphate
Near you at any date
From Somalia to France
Pious madmen frenzied dance
Swords, AKs and RPGs
Building tools of all Shahids
Can’t get better when demise
Means group sex in paradise
at March 23, 2008 1:54 PM
Muslims believe in and try to be just like their "perfect man" the prophet Mohamand.
Mohamand, a man,a prophet a leader, who can't take the mocking of a woman
He had a mother of five small children murderd.
So what can you expect from his followers?
Just what they are doing in Iran, that's what to expect from all Mohamands true followers.
"The apples don't fall far from the tree"
at March 23, 2008 3:04 PM
I like Lewis’ comparison between Islam and the Mafia.
-Extortion (9:29)
-Coersion (“Whoever changes his religion, kill him”)
-Pattern of felonious behavior (2:10 – 2:99 - 2:104 – 2:171 – 3:28 – 3:48 – 3:73 – 4:64 – 4:89 – 4:101 – 4:144 – 5:51 – 5:57 – 5:59 – 5:60 – 6:106 – 8:55 - 9:5)
When the political will comes around, the RICO Statutes are there for use.
I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Spencer at an airport not too long ago. A true class act. Thanks Robert and Company for all your hard work.
Happy Easter.
at March 23, 2008 3:16 PM
There seems to be a lot of naiveté towards the RoP in the US, where exotic costumes and beards along with turbans & 'portable seclusion' are seen as a fad, a fashion trend.
This creepy 'fashion' is promoted by these very same agit-props who act strangely and make all kinds of demands, loudly and self-assured, and seeing them succeed impresses young, malleable minds.
Then there is the grievance theater, the perceived 'racism', that idiot word 'Islamophobe' (you don't want to be called either, right?) and the blaming of white colonialism, exploitation, slavery, every evil in the world, and another born again convert (okay make that 'revert') is on his way to 'martyrdom'.
Islam on the move. Islam full steam ahead. Few people are able to oppose this fanatical cult.
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/03/23/bashir-spews-more-bile-poison-than-ever-incites-martyrdom-death/
at March 23, 2008 3:17 PM
That is a remarkably concise summary of the entire catalogue of Islamophile gambits. Deja vu for sure.
Also --
Excellent comments all! Y'all make this jihadwatcher proud.
Posted by: Goob at March 23, 2008 3:43 PM
A partial repost from here that is relevant.
A much bigger concern, I believe, is the deliberate perversion of critical thinking skills in social sciences occurring at the university level. Deliberately twisting physical concepts such as the uncertainty principle to justify 'postmodern' social viewpoints and prejudices like moral relativism and multiculturalism is a tremendous problem for the future of both rational thought and domestic tranquility.
At first glance I attributed this 'new' postmodern line of 'inquiry' to its proponents taking a few too many hits on a bong and failing, the next morning, to realize their new 'insights' were drug induced and didn't pass the scrutiny of sober reflection.
Now, I only wish that scenario were true.
The more I look at this problem the less I am convinced that is accidental. Moral relativism and multiculturalism do more than remove adherents from personal responsibility for rational thought and discrimination between right and wrong; they spread the notion that exercising rational thought and the recognizing distinctions between right and wrong are undesirable public ills.
This situation has frightening implications for the future. Social Darwinism and the adaptation of pseudoscientific government policy was a crucial underpinning of the most brutal regimes of the twentieth century.
Postmodern, leftist ideology empowers Islamic belligerence and encourages the erosion of law and custom that in other circumstances would be impossible; in David Horowitz's words, an Unholy Alliance.
The outright rejection of critical thinking skills by in the post-modern movement is an attempt to discredit the West and weaken capitalism by removing the rational foundation it is built upon. We see examples of this in the 'Global Warming Debate'. If simulations used for commercial aircraft design or other design applications involving immediate and demonstrable public safety issues (bridge, building, and dam design for instance) were given no more scrutiny and subject to no more verification and validation that global warming models are given, there would be a public outcry when it became apparent, and justifiably so.
But, with 'Global Warming', physical reality no longer matters as much as intentions. Sound scientific method and design verification processes are bypassed with jingolistic slogans like 'the debate is over'. The consequence of 'failure to act' is presented as undoubtedly catastrophic and too immediate to ignore, but just enough over the horizon that those consequences cannot be tested. And our 'salvation' just happens to lie in giving a governmental body, the U.N., power and profit (St. Gores carbon trading company for instance) in controlling production and use of the lifeblood of the economy and modern civilization: energy.
Most handily, a natural down-slope in the oscillation of the global temperature mean over the next few decades will be indistinguishable from the 'success', that is - the total lack of any effect whatsoever, of U.N. climate change policy. The west is now positioned, politically and psychologically, to submit to environmental Jizya payments to purchase our social purity.
This has ominous religious aspects to me, and is obvious when trying to engage a global warming 'true believer' in a rational discussion of the subject.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 23, 2008 3:36 PM
Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 23, 2008 4:04 PM
OT
Prague- The Czech extra-parliamentary nationalist National Party (NS) has offered its foreign server for the release of the controversial anti-Islamic film of Dutch ultra-right MP Geert Wilders, the NS announced on its website today.
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/03/prague-czech-extra-parliamentary.html
Posted by: Shiva at March 23, 2008 4:49 PM
It's interesting to note that this is Purim, and a reading of the Meggillah reminds Jews that many ancient Persian rulers, such as Xerxes and Cyrus, were often friends of the Jews. Also, Persian history is replete with stories of exalted women who were warriors and leaders :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66unfiedk-o
It is only since Islam came to Persia that women have been degraded and Jews and other minorities disrespected.
at March 23, 2008 4:52 PM
Followup post (today) by John Lewis:
http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2008/03/islamist-declaration-against-terrorism.asp
Posted by: MelM at March 23, 2008 5:05 PM
From: The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam
By Alex Epstein (ARI op-ed)
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13279&news_iv_ctrl=1021
"The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion."Posted by: MelM
at March 23, 2008 5:45 PM
Now was that audience member a moderate Muslim? of course he was but moderate is relative, and that make his $500 million a scary proposition for the rest of us.
Here is an ideology that totally disregards the right of non-Muslims to live in an equal world.
If that is a religion of even an ideology that should command respect then the same should hold for the utterings of the mentally insane.
A muslim should be respected as another human being but pitied (and managed) for his ideology.
at March 23, 2008 6:26 PM
>>The biggest crime a believer can commit is to forget about Allah. The biggest crime a kufir can commit is to not believe in Allah to begin with.--duh_swami
The pagan lunar god allah doesn't exist.
That's the most pitiful thing about the Barbarians (besides mass-murder) - they believe in a god that doesn't exist.
at March 23, 2008 6:39 PM
I like the idea of Hugh, they should be in the future 'video taped' and put on YouTube. The dingBat religion need to be tackled very seriously before they make everyone's life unbearable.
Who the heck is letting them in by the moder-lode? It is absurd and something is very wrong with our System that we are not watching them as much as we should. Islam is, semi-officially declared, our enemy, and we have hoards of moon-bats occupying all kinds of high-offices.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 23, 2008 6:40 PM
Thanks for that link, MelM.
'The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion.'
Sadly, though, here's another of our clueless elected officials who didn't get the memo(start at 39 seconds):
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=66454
...'and I think in the end, he has an ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism; to maybe even give power to moderate Islam; to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion...'
at March 23, 2008 6:56 PM
of a legitimate religion...'
Posted by: PRCS at March 23, 2008 6:56 PM
Except that it's not legitimate.
It's a hoax, a sham, a fraud, like false prophet Mo.
Posted by: darcy at March 23, 2008 7:11 PM
Muslim logic goes like this:
* Islam and muslims are alway right, no matter what they say or claim. For example, if the KKKoran says that the earth is flat, the earth is flat, no matter what the infidel scientists at NASA say.
* Non-muslims are right when they agree with Islam or muslims, and wrong when they disagree with Islam or muslims. A corollary to that is, non-muslims are right when muslims say that they are right, and wrong when muslims say that they are wrong.
C'mon, Robert, you know that!
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 23, 2008 7:55 PM
"how can you understand or talk about Iran if you haven't been there?"
This is a common attack strategy...just exchange "Iran" for "Palestine" or "Saudi Arabia" or "Egypt" and you get told you can't talk about a place unless you've been there. (The only exception seems to be Iraq; I haven't yet heard an anti-war critic being told their views hold no merit because they haven't recently visited Baghdad).
I was given that line last year at an anti-Israel meeting when I suggested that Hamas could have peace with Israel tomorrow if they wanted it. After the meeting, the Palestinian moderator asked me if I had visited Palestine. When I said I hadn't, he replied I needed to see it before I could talk about it.
As destiny would have it, a few months later I was travelling through Amman and had a week to spare. I travelled overland into the West Bank and spent a week going through checkpoints, visiting refugee camps, and Palestinian slums. I had numerous extended conversations with Palestinians. What I saw is that the worst Palestinian slums in the refugee camps are no worse than slums in Cairo or Casablanca. This is the way impoverished Arabs live everywhere. The Palestinians who told me they needed to resist Israel "to defend our rights" just seemed to be parotting what they had been told for years. Rather then changing my mind, my visit reinforced my conviction that the Palestinains could have peace with Israel - with a greatly improved lifestyle and benefits for both sides - if they only wanted to.
Posted by: ed at March 23, 2008 9:00 PM
15 seconds, not 15 minutes, is all one gives a fool to exlain his folly.
Mr. Lewis is too patient with dolts.
Since he knows Islam already, all he needed to do is interrupt- and say:
"I'm sorry, but I have read Islam's texts, and they point to a theocratic tyranny. I shall not submit to such a thing. If you will, then we are opponents. If you wish to speak, you will have to do what I did to get here. Now, another, real, question, and not shameless pandering for despotism?"
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 23, 2008 9:33 PM
profitsbeard,
Well said post. I wish that Lewis would have cut off his microphone and had the security guards tazer the dude.
at March 23, 2008 11:19 PM
Spot on, profitsbeard.
lengthy monologues like that serve only one purpose: to distract and to derail the speaker, which is infuriating. Even if you give such a guy 2 minutes, its too long. The proper modus operandi is to let him speak and if he hasn't asked his question in the first 30 seconds, you withdraw the microphone. And yes, Xero, a bit of tazing in any case might help the enlightenment...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 24, 2008 12:28 AM
"how can you understand or talk about Iran if you haven't been there?"
If Lewis countered with "I have been there", his accuser would have accused him of misinterpreting what he saw while there.
Lewis couldn't have won in any case.
Posted by: rational at March 24, 2008 1:44 AM
Muslim logic goes like this:
* Islam and muslims are alway right, no matter what they say or claim. For example, if the KKKoran says that the earth is flat, the earth is flat, no matter what the infidel scientists at NASA say.
* Non-muslims are right when they agree with Islam or muslims, and wrong when they disagree with Islam or muslims. A corollary to that is, non-muslims are right when muslims say that they are right, and wrong when muslims say that they are wrong...
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook March 23, 2008 7:55 PM
-- -- -- -- -- --
Point #1, see
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1684.htm
for
A discussion between two Iraqis (a physicist and a so-called "researcher on astronomy"). The "astronomy" idiot declares "What I say is based on Koranic science. He bases his arguments on the kind of science that I reject categorically – the modern science that they teach in schools. This science is a heretic innovation that has no confirmation in the Koran. No verse in the Koran indicates that the Earth is round or that it rotates. Anything that has no indication in the Koran is false." Hooray for Islamic science!
Point #2
That's a corollary to the Islamic First Principle:
Islam is Perfect, Allah is Perfect, Mohammed is Perfect, the Quran is Perfect.
The derivative of this principle is that anything based on Islamic thought or belief, or anything thought, believed, or pronounced by a believer in Islam, has intrinsically more value (truth, purity, correctness) than anything derived from any other belief system (other beliefs are by definition incorrect, and debased by the rejection of Allah's truth).
Ultimately, what unbelievers say and think is incorrect, imperfect, ignorant, impure/immoral, incomplete, arrogant, divisive, and irrelevant, due to their disregard of all things holy.
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 24, 2008 2:13 AM
Hugh is right-on!!
All such events should be video'd and all participants details handed over to the FBI.
McCarthism was paranoia of extreme proportions by the US Government and Hoover and McCarthy particularly - but this threat is a far greater threat to the free world.
Immigration by Muslims to Western Nations must be stopped immediately and deportation programs started for all suspected of jihadist, or even remotely connected covert activities.
Any muslim working in a Government agency should be investigated. In Australia, they have been caught out in senior positions in the Department of Immigration authorizing Muslim entry by the truckload and refusing Jews & Christians entry - to a Judaeo-Christian Nation!! This has got to stop and be reversed.
Posted by: OneWay-Jesus at March 24, 2008 5:01 AM
Well of course he has to call you names. If he engaged in actual argument
a) that would imply respect for what you had to say
b) he would have to use higher-order thinking skills.
Neither of those would let him win.
As a non-Islamic, you are not worthy of respect anyway.
at March 24, 2008 7:00 AM
A_Nonny_Mouse,
You'll notice Islam has no problem using principles and developments of infidel science when it is advantageous, as in weapons development. It's telling that they seem uninterested in mastering the technology of petroleum refinement.
Of course, if they are successful in their grand jihad, we'll soon find that Western scientific tradition was really Islamic all along. I wonder how long the legacies of Newton and Einstein would survive.
Well, no, I don't wonder, it wouldn't be long at all.
at March 24, 2008 1:20 PM
Robert-
and Mr. Lewis, Daniel Pipes, and others:
Perhaps another thing to do to prepare for the Q-&-A after your speeches is to hand out a flyer with the 10-most-common "arguments" and their refutations listed on it. That way, when the first Islamo-apologist starts droning on, you can cut him off with "That's #4 on the list. Next question?"
Just a thought. Efficiency, and all...
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 24, 2008 1:38 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)