Lores Rizkalla Live

i made a comment about this already; where did it go?

sorry raymond. not sure what happened.

An excellent book on Islam is
"Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq.

Hi Lores, I miss the debate. Do you have a link of the audio file? Thanks.

to lores rizkalla, that is okay, i know it was not your fault, my message disappearing is just another of life's mysteries. but thank you for so kindly expressing regret anyway. now getting to the message that i had sent, let me try to state in a briefer way what i had expressed. i am surprised that robert spencer and dinesh d'souza are about to debate each other, when really they are on the same side of things. in fact, i can make a one sentence statement that kind of summarizes the message both of those men have to say, and that is: for us to defeat the islamofascist terrorists, we must first admit the problem exists, and then prepare to fight them both externally, through military power (spencer), and internally, by strengthening the pride we need to have in our own free and civilized western societies (d'souza).

Rob,
The debate is on at 7pm (PST) tonight. So, you haven't missed it. There's a link to listen live at the top of this page. Also, I will post the audio at this site late tonight.

Thank you. Feel free to email at lores@loreslive.com.

Great debate.

I am from Indonesia (the largest muslim population country) and, for me as a Christian, Dinesh's approach is the right one. If I were to use Robert's approach in the streets of Jakarta -telling Muhammad is the founder of the world's most intolerant religion- I would be stonned to death in no time.

Thanks again.

i just heard lores rizkalla's show tonight with robert spencer and dinesh d'souza, and would like to comment on it now. for one thing, i sat here feeling helpless, wanting to help lores rizkalla in some way yet knowing that i could not. she had to deal with two intelligent, educated people who felt too passionate and sure about their positions to actually let each other complete their thoughts.
regarding the issues that were put forth, as much as i respect both men, i just cannot agree with d'nesh d'souza. as a jew, it was especially heartwarming to hear lores rizkalla (thank you for that!) point out at the very end of her program how israel has done nothing to deserve the nazi-like way they are treated on a daily basis by their moslem neighbors. what i do not like about d'souza's approach in general is that he tries to blame the west for being attacked by the islamofascists, as if it is somehow our fault. he may express this approach from a right-of-center viewpoint, attacking western cultural decadence, but it still comes down to blaming the victim for the crimes perpetrated on them by the criminal aggressors.
furthemore, unlike robert spencer, d'souza did not seem to have extensive awareness of islamic history; he talks as if islamofascist terrorism is somehow a modern invention. this is historically absurd; islam has been terrorizing the world ever since mohammed himself mandated his followers to do just that.
finally, to compare islam to christianity is ridiculous, and i am saying this as a jew, knowing full well how christianity does not historically have a record to be proud of in its treatment of my people. but when christianity acted in a terrible fashion during the middle ages, they did so in SPITE of the teachings of their very gentle founder, JESUS, while when moslems act in a similarly or actually much more violent way, they are doing so BECAUSE of the teachings of their very violent, angry, bigoted, ruthless, dishonest, child molesting, murderous founder, mohammed.
in other words, robert spencer is right!

Lores,as a fellow Indian I felt ashamed of Dinesh's utterly ridiculous arguments. What Dinesh is doing is, to my mind, akin to what the far left does in blaming the USA for the 9-11 attacks. Dinesh's main thesis is that it is the West's immorality that is helping recruit muslims to what he calls radical Islam. This is utter BS. Not only does it lay the blame entirely on the wrong side (after all, Islamic teachings are the primary cause of Islamic jihad) it is also historically incorrect since the Islamic jihad against the rest of the World has existed long before the supposed cultural immorality of the West, Dinesh completely ignores the fact that it is not just the West the jihad is being faught, but all across the globe. Why in India for example, the jehadists attack almost on a daily basis, as they do in as far-away places as Indonesia and Russia. Dinesh keeps pointing to muslims in India and the fact that they were unable to convert all the Hindus to Islam as an example of Islam's tolerance. Over 60 million Hindus have been killed in the Islamic onslaught into the Indian subcontinent over the past centuries... but that seems to be often little importance to Dinesh.

Dinesh has clearly hijacked the issue of Islamic jihad to attack the liberal West, One has only to listen to the radical Islamists to realize that these muslims hate us not for our so called immorality, but because we do not subscribe to the sharia which their founder, Muhhamad insisted had to be hoisted upon all of mankind. They hate us irrespective of whether we are liberals or conservatives, devout Christians/Jesws/Hindus/Sikhs/etc or atheists. Dinesh's blaming of the 'liberal' West as one of the root causes of 9-11 does nothing more than divide the Western World, when we really need is to be united against the scourge of Islamism. That he can find an ally in Islam to attack the 'liberals' is, to my mind, utterly depraved. So what does he suggest the West do... create a moral police here?

Lores, I am still trying to dig my eyebrows out of the back of my neck. Dinesh D'Souza said such outlandish things last night, that one is left wondering just whom he was trying to impress or pacify.

Two previous comments echo my own thoughts, also. Raymond mentioned that D'Souza "did not seem to have extensive awareness of islamic history; he talks as if islamofascist terrorism is somehow a modern invention". Yes he did speak in that theme, several times. Once he said that the Islamo-Nazis had only been active for about the last 25 years (paraphrased). Madrassas are obviously like Catholic girls schools, in keeping their occupants innocent of true world affairs, but D'Souza has been around for years since his school days and has to have been exposed to 7th Century history, and the reasons for the Crusades.

I agree with Rob where he mentioned that "it is also historically incorrect since the Islamic jihad against the rest of the World has existed long before the supposed cultural immorality of the West". Western culture did not exist 1,300 years ago when Mohammad was leading his murderous thieves and cut-throats in a Jihad across the Middle East and into Europe. Gengis Khan did not do the ravaging that the early Islamic fanatics did, and to suggest otherwise is irrational.

Rob also mentioned the continual annihilation of non-Moslems in India ever since. Christian school girls and others have been murdered without an outcry from the West, and D'Souza acts as though Islamic hate-crimes are to blamed on incroaching American culture and not a centuries old Jihadic practice.

It is a shame that two intelligent men, who are both highly aware of the Islamic threat to western civilization, could be so passionately different in their approaches to the reasons for Jihadic activity, and the possible oncome.

Correction to my last post -

I accredited the wrong contributor with two passages in my last post.

My apologies to Rajender Razdan, who wrote the words that I quoted as written by "Rob" and my appreciation for your great comments.

This highly spirited interview was gripping from both sides; both authors added something to the mix. While it is true that historically Islam as outlined by the teachings of Muhammad has no tolerance for outside religions, as outlined in Spencer’s book, the unprecedented rise in radical Islam apppears to correlate to the sharp decrease in traditional Western values.

The real challenge is to reform and open the minds of the children of Islamofacists.

Don writes: the unprecedented rise in radical Islam apppears to correlate to the sharp decrease in traditional Western values.

Don,the notion that there has been a unprecedented rise in radical Islam within the last decade is a complete fallacy. Radical Islam has been waging its jihad for centuries, including the whole of the 20th century. What has changed is that people have only now become aware of it after the dramatic events of 9-11. This jihad has been waged against almost all countries and religions, not just recently against the West. For example, we have had a jihad war in Kashmir (where I come from) for the last 30 years (I'm not even counting the countless jihads we have had waged in the Indian subcontinent over the past few centuries). Lores makes the case that in her native Egypt, too, there has a been a jihad waged against Christians for centuries. I'm sorry, but trying to make a correlation between the so called rise of immorality in the West with the rise of Islam is just plain stupid!

I think the challenge is not just opening the minds of the children of Islamofascists but also opening the minds of most fellow Americans to the fact that Islam presents a far greater threat to them then their regular pet peeves against each other (i.e. the left vs. right, the Democrats vs. Republicans... etc. etc.). This is where I feel Robert Spencer does a wonderful job in his JihadWatch site and in his many interviews and books that he has written.

Rajender,
My respect for Robert Spencer's book “The Truth About Muhammad...”is boundless. My respect for the warnings of Walid Shoebat , Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, (whom I learned from Lores..Bless her) and Irshad Manji the Muslim voice of reform and the author of, ‘The Trouble With Islam Today keep me riveted.

Rajender, I am well aware that the deadly spread of radical Islam is far reaching and has been, like you said for centuries. Remember Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan answering the press corps alongside President Bush at the White House on September 26 2006. Karzai said:
“Terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11th. The president mentioned some examples of it. These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around the world for years, .... killing children..., forcing populations to poverty and misery. They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt....” That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated.”

I must thank you Rajender by pointing out and allowing me to revise my post by saying,
“the unprecedented rise in 'reporting' radical Islam....” may fit the bill better.

i applaud rajender razdan for being both articulate and accurate in his views. dineseh d'souza's whole premise is wrong, that somehow our values are what is igniting islamic terrorism.
i will say, though, that i do think there are some things in our (the west's) behavior that encourages islamofascism; it is just the kinds of things that d'souza talks about. for example, the anti-war movement here in america, as well as anywhere in the free world where anti-american and antisemitic sentiments are expressed in one form or another, encourages islamofascism. also, i have to say that we have carried the normally noble idea of anti-discrimination laws in this country way too far. it makes no sense to strip search little old christian ladies at airports while letting arab sheiks freely pass through customs at the airport, all in the name of supposed equality before the law. who, after all, are the terrorists of this world, the buddhists? brazilians? catholic nuns? fans of LR named raymond who like to make online comments? adorable beautiful egyptian-american christians named lores rizkalla? come on, we need to get real here!
for the sake of the survival of our free, open, and democratic societies, we cannot afford to hide from the truth. not all moslems are terrorists, but all terrorists are indeed moslems. the less resolve we show to destroy islamofascism using unrelenting, uncompromising, brute physical force, the more the islamofascists are encouraged to keep murdering us.

I believe to varying degrees we are all on the same page here. As of yet Mike the Liberal Dude has not commented, but he may be still recovering from his trip Back-to-the-Future at the "Rally" in DC with Jihad Janey et al.

What we all seem to agree on is the very real threat to non-Moslems, whether Britney Sears wanna-bes, Hip Hop stars, or good practing Catholics. The Islamic fanatics hate everyone who is Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddist or practicing atheist. Mohammad and his minions slaughtered innocent people in their path to the west and the horrific murder has continued ever since.

I'm one of the blonde, fair-skinned, English speaking grandmothers who would be strip searched at an airport, but I knew as a child that the Islamics hated me because I am a Christian. Only Christine Amanpour and her ilk would fain ignorance at the centuries-old madness that has permeated the world since the 7th Century.

I believe Rajender Razdan touched on a vital concern when he wrote that one of the challenges of today is "opening the minds of most fellow Americans to the fact that Islam presents a far greater threat to them then their regular pet peeves against each other"

I agree with Don from Ronkonkoma where he mentioned the various authors who warn us about Islamic Jihadists. The first time I heard Brigette Gabriel's story I thought it was astounding, and the other authors also have voices which desperately need to be heard and acknowleged by Americans and other western countries.

A NEED FOR SYNERGETIC ALLIANCE
I am reminded of a parable about seven wise men - all blind - who were reporting their impressions of an elephant around which they were gathered. The man holding the trunk of the elephant, described the beast as being like a wrinkled boa constrictor. The one holding the ear thought the elephant was like a leathery palm leaf. The sage holding the tusk spoke of a curved spear. And so forth, back to the guy holding the tail (for whom I have always felt some wry pity). The moral of the story is obvious, for only rarely do we see the whole chessboard and never from the same perspective. Moreover our weighting of important variables and issues is conditioned by our background and values.

I think Dinesh is quite correct in many of his observations. And in this age of widespread international video, voice and internet, the naked (and often misleading) face of our evolving "Western" culture is simply horrifying to many cultures and a direct threat to those who lead them. Moreover, these images can be, and are, being used to promote contempt for us - the vital precursor to justifying our destruction. (Can you think of even one recent situation comedy, police show or action thriller that gives a fair, positive shake to way we really are and typically behave? We're not producing shows like "Little House on the Prairie" anymore. It's Desperate Housewives ad nauseam. And this stuff is selling in overseas markets. But it's not selling us. When pondering this, I have often thought, "No wonder they despise us!")

Add to this, the self-evident, soft-bigotry of the liberals' contempt for any viewpoint save their own. The problem grows truly awful when the liberal elite control the levers of power. Carter and his handling of Iran is a horrible, but not isolated, example. Dinesh is quite correct in pointing this out and emphasizing its importance. But there is more to the elephant than this. (As he admits.)

Robert Spencer is correct too. Islam is a monster-made faith cobbled together to do two things very well:
(1) Motivate fearless (but feckless) followers to invade, conquer and enslave with whatever deceit or violence is necessary.
(2) To keep those led and conquered in perpetual submission by whatever means necessary and tactically prudent. (There is a very good reason to get the faithful, from childhood on, praying toward Mecca on their knees five times a day. Ask your local hypnotist how this works. And don't forget the death penalty, especially for apostasy.)

Mark Steyn, also, has much to say about the onrushing menace. And he, too, in explaining demographics and culture war has important observations that profile our peril and our elephantine dilemma.

What dilemma, you ask? The challenge is fairly obvious, is it not? Yes! And NO! Our survival must be assured, we all agree. But if it truly boils down to them or us, the real question is this: can we reform Islam without a Thirty Years War - this time with atomic weapons? (Remember Pakistan etc.) And how do you reform the militant religion of 1,300,000,000 Muslims without killing them all? (Yes, killing them all IS doable - but what will our planet and civilizations look like after?)

I truly believe that George Bush has looked into this abyss. And that he is trying to find a middle path between two horrors:
(1) slow submission to the withered dark age of an Islamic Caliphate and
(2) holy war complete with multiple mass atrocities leading to annihilation on both sides. (The Jihadis prefer this last option, since they think it will lead to the first option or paradise. That is why they try so hard to outrage us, to get us to pull out the stops and provoke the Umma into world-wide holy war. Hello, Armageddon! Some re-assembly required.)

And don't think it's just Bush's problem either. If the Jihad fanatics hit us hard enough, with WMD's, we will strike back with unrestrained fury. Bush is trying to save BOTH sides.

Too bad the Dhimmi-rats value power more than loyalty to our civilization. They are pathological Marxists at heart and parasites that cannot thrive in a healthy body politic. Their tacit alliance with our nation's enemies as a way of hobbling George Bush may cost us the war. I think their dominance in the MSM and educational institutions is a far greater danger than even the Jihadis and their sponsors in China and Russia.

Bush cannot personally respond to this backstabbing gottcha politics directly. His responsibilities hold him hostage to the critical tasks at hand - like a driver of a runaway propane truck on a steep and winding road. His great hope is that the mountain is finite and that it's possible, just possible, to make the flats below. (Having 535 unruly kids in the back yanking on his arms and yelling in his ear, "Are we there yet?" doesn't help a bit.)

Well, back to topic. Dinesh and Robert were talking past each other and Bob was clearly miffed with being criticized by Dinesh in his book. As others have pointed out, we have enough enemies without flaming our allies, even inadvertently.

What I would like to see is Spencer, D'Souza, Steyn and other western patriotic writers get their heads together and get on the same pages for:
(1) A comprehensive analysis of the Islamic challenge that incorporates all parts of the elephant.
(2) And since we need more than a diagnosis, how about a practical set of proposals for mobilizing GRASSROOTS political action to help win the struggle?

Bush is right, it will take decades to do it all. And he will need all the effective help at the grassroots level that WE can provide. We must all hang together... or do so separately.

Finally, my thanks to Lores Rizkalla and her gracious efforts to bring the debate to our ears. Kudos, indeed!

Yours in Liberty,
Mac
<RustePoet@yahoo.com>

Thank you all for your participation in the debate. And, yes, the key is getting the word out to whatever degree we, as individuals, are able to.

Some may say that I cover this topic too much on my show. But, I don't believe that there is a more important issue in our day.

God bless you all!
Lores

after reading all the comments made here, i feel humbled, as i am reminded that there are people far more articulate and clear thinking than i am. but look at what kind of people are drawn to lores rizkalla's show: really, the best that our society has to offer. that is such a reflection of and testimony to the kind of woman lores rizkalla is. she is a visionary, a saint, a beautiful, perfect angel!
this leads me to a related point. lores rizkalla mentioned how there are those who claim that she has this topic of the dangers of islamofascism on her show too much, and she responds by saying that she feels this topic is too important to not emphasize. of course she is right; it is the defining issue of our time; every other issue pales in comparison (which is why i am putting in another plug for rudy guliani for president!). but on a more psychological level, it makes me feel good that this topic is being discussed, and to read all the fine comments made here. no, it is not that i am some mashochist who enjoys hearing how our way of life is being threatened by a bunch of 7th century middle eastern barbarians; it is that we live in an age of such overwhelming, idiotic, suicidal political correctness, in other words, outright lies about the reality we live in, that it feels really good to see that i am not the only one who sees the real truth of things. it is reassuring to know that i am not the only sane one left on planet earth!

Bravo, Raymond for your well articulated comments. Yes, you are not alone. There are many more of us, like you, who are sick of the PC world around us and who are declaring, like the little girl (or was it a boy?) in the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes that the king is stark naked (or in this case that Islam is not a peaceful religion but one which aims at usurping all other forms of government across the World). With respect to the debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Robert Spenser I felt that Dinesh had some excellent points about how the liberal left-wing media and politicians, with their constant haranguing of Bush administration and its handling of the Iraq War without providing the context of the more important war against the jehadists that we are up against, are providing aid and comfort to our enemy, Unfortunately, Dinesh ends up doing exactly the same thing (i.e. providing aid and comfort to our enemy) by asking Robert to essentially keep quiet about the Islamic texts such as the Koran and the various hadiths that guide the jehadist actions (this is not something that Robert invented, but what the jehadists quite openly and proudly say). Worse, Dinesh actually feels that there is a common ground between the so-called 'moderate' muslims and the mainstream Americans in that they can both join together to bash the moral mores of our left-wing media and Hollywood. It is Dinesh who ends up pandering to the Islamists by buying into the notion that there is something wrong with America and its moral values. There is absolutely nothing wrong with America's moral values, full stop! We are a free nation, with the freedom to do what each of us thinks is right (as long as we don't harm or hurt others). It is obvious that, given this freedom, we will find people who may not match up to our own ideas of morality or norms of behavior. But that is the price one pays for living in a free society.

As Raymond points out Islamofascism/Islamism/Islam (take your pick) is the defining issue of our time and the threat we face from Islam far outweighs any other of the pet peeves we may happen to have with each other (including our fears of loosing our moral values). Islam equally threatens the values of both the far left and the far right and it is important for both to join together and fight the force of Islam. Dinesh's thesis and new book, unfortunately, does nothing more than drive another wedge between the two. This is a pity because his earlier two books were pretty good.