Esmay: Do Facts Matter?
posted at 11:39 am on September 28, 2006 by Bryan
I wouldn’t even respond to this, except that a) it’s the second time in a week Dean Esmay has tried to mug Michelle Malkin and/or Hot Air, and b) it got linked over at InstaPundit so it’s probably gotten a little more visibility than Dean’s blog usually enjoys.
So Dean, since you’re in such a fightin’ mood, fight to find a few things. For instance, find one post on this blog or Michelle’s in which either she or I or anyone outside the comments suggests that the US should “declare war on the entire Muslim world.” Ok? Go back to JunkYardBlog if you want, too, since that’s where I used to write and from which you once accused me of making up a story out of thin air–remember that, Dean? I was proven right that time, and I don’t recall ever getting an apology from you. Since you’ve levelled this new charge at us, of pining for all-out war against all Muslims and being aligned in thought with al Qaeda in that wish, it’s on you to provide evidence of our guilt. So I challenge you to do so, with quotes and specifics, or kindly go away. If you level the charge but can’t provide specifics to back it up, you’re only making a fool of yourself and anyone who links to your diatribe.
While you’re at it, please deal with the Abdul Rahman case. He was set to be executed by the post-Taliban government of Afghanistan for the offense of converting from Islam to Christianity. His execution was rooted in the country’s law, not “radicalism” or “terrorism” or anything on the fringe–just its constitutional Islamic law, which is also practiced in one form or another in Pakistan, Iran, the new Iraq, etc, two of those three being our allies in this war. Pressure from around the world, including a few blogs, saved that man’s life. Should we have remained silent and let Abdul Rahman die? Or should we have allowed Islamic sharia law to have his head, in a country we liberated? Should the hard facts of the Rahman case, the fact that average Afghans promised to kill him if the government released him, and the dozens of other cases like it that take place year in and year out across the Islamic world, shape our understanding of the religion and culture of the region, or not? No arm-waving, Dean–just kindly and with specifics answer the questions.
While you’re at it, if you’re going to accuse people of “anti-Islam” sentiment or whatever politically correct term happens to be your favorite today, please do offer up specifics–you know, links and quotes to back up your claims. Generalizations indicate either laziness on your part, or incompetence at researching your topic, or ignorance of the topic, or a hair-trigger reflex to smear others who disagree with you, or some combination of all of that. Specifics are your friend, er, if the facts are on your side. And you claim, without providing a shred of evidence, that the facts are on your side in your fight against “friends” you accuse so often and so baselessly (for the record and speaking for myself, you haven’t earned the title of “friend” in my book. Hint: friendship isn’t usually the product of tossing around baseless accusations. Also for the record, I don’t consider you an enemy, either. I don’t recall considering your opinion worth seeking on any matter in years). So let’s have specifics, or kindly go away. And if you’re going to accuse us or anyone else of cherry-picking from the Koran, it really is on you to refute what we’ve said, quoted or interpreted, with specific facts to prove us wrong. Hand-waving generalizations and spittle-flecked name calling just make you look silly and add nothing to the reasoned discourse you claim to want. When you call your own co-blogger a “traitor” and say you’re just keeping him around to prove your own points, you come off as an unpleasant demagogue, not a reasonable debater. Substituting four-letter words for debate makes you look childish and lacking self-control, not reasonable and in command of the facts.
And finally, I note that you’re a strident critic of Robert Spencer, who now hosts a show on Hot Air. If you have an argument against anything he says or shows in that show, offer it. With specifics and facts, naturally. Or kindly go away.
Since you’ve publicly called Michelle (and by extension Hot Air) out with a raft of accusations, answer this reply with specifics and facts, or I’ll dismiss you for a jackbooted ninny. That is a title you will have undoubtedly earned.
More: Michelle responds.
Breaking on Hot Air