D’Souza vs Glazov
posted at 11:45 am on January 25, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
There’s a very interesting debate going on over at Frontpage between Dinesh D’Souza and Jamie Glazov over the western left’s role in fomenting and then possibly losing the war on radical Islam. Both leave us much to think about and chew on, but I want to highlight one section of D’Souza’s thinking on the possibility of alliance with traditional Muslims:
D’Souza: Our current strategy is based on trying to find secular liberals in the Muslim world, people who believe in women’s rights and separation of church and state. News flash: there are hardly any such people. Yes, there is Salman Rushdie and a lesbian radio host in Canada who have gotten a lot of attention. I like some of the things these Muslim liberals are saying. But they have no constituency in the Muslim world. That world is divided between the Islamic radicals and traditional Muslims. The left is allied with the Islamic radicals, so common sense says the right should build ties with traditional Muslims. Besides, there is no way to win the war on terror without driving a wedge between radicals and traditionalists. The traditional Muslims are the recruiting pool for radical Islam. Even if we kill 100 radicals, it’s no use if 500 traditional Muslims join the next day. So we have to find a way of drying up radical Islam’s recruitment. Whenever we attack Islam or say that Muhammad was the founder of terrorism, we are pursuing a self-defeating strategy because we are driving traditional Muslims into the hands of the radicals.
From our limited stay in Baghdad, I think D’Souza is quite right that there are very few Salman Rushdie types in the Islamic world, and he’s also right that they have almost no constituency of support. It probably is self-defeating to go looking for them when there are so many more traditional and radical Muslims around who are so much more influential than true Muslim liberals.
The good news, though, is that the US policy at least in Baghdad didn’t appear to me to be based on finding Salman Rushdies and promoting them. The press and blogs talk about that because we like the oddballs and because we hope that in the end it’s people like Rushdie who carry the day. But that’s a fantasy, and it’s not how the military is operating on the ground.
From what we saw, the US is working with traditional Muslims in their own neighborhoods, block by block, to restore order and services and thereby dry up the radicals’ recruiting pool. It’s basic counterinsurgency thinking, and it’s governing how the military is attempting to win the war, and over time it can work. If you haven’t seen it yet, watch this video we produced from interviews we conducted in Iraq. Note how “liberal” everyone in the video appears, and pay attention to what they say–about democracy, about America, and about the war.
They’re all traditional Muslims. None of them are radicals. They want the same basic things we all want–available food, safe streets, good schools, jobs, etc. And our troops are working with them to defeat the various radical terrorists, insurgents and militias in Iraq by helping them get the basics up and running. And by killing off the bad guys when the opportunity arises.
Part Two of the debate between D’Souza and Glazov is here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Interesting, and right on the money (D’Souza that is). Aside from the right military tactics on the ground; how do you execute the theory in the global war on islamofascisim?
RC2 on January 25, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Haven’t had time yet to read D’Souza’s book, but read Robert Spencer’s post here.
Michelle on January 25, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I agree, RC2.
How we execute the this global war on Islamofascism
is to continue to help “moderate” Muslims achieve the same things they say they want. Easier said then done. However, the most important thing we, in the USA need, is tountie our boys and girls hand from behind their back, take off the blindfold covering one eye, stop the PC bullsh.. here and abroad, call a spade a spade and do away with any bad guys we come across here,in Iraq and anywhere they are found.
But, we can’t! The loons on the left will fight every inch of the way…the anti-war anarchists, socialists, communists and democrats with the help of 99% of the MSM and Hollywood will stop at nothing to prevent our fighting fairly with the terrorists. These “people” truly believe that their doctrine is not only correct, but the only way to change America to suit them. It has taken nearly 60 years but they have finally reached the stage where they will have complete control of everything, top/down, and only then will the American public realize it…or, maybe not. Man is, afer all, a being more interested in himself and his needs than anything else.
sharinlite on January 25, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Problem with this view is that once an Islamic state, run by traditional Moslems gains stability, it once again becomes a breeding ground for Radicals.
Most 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, from middle class families… Osama was from a wealthy background… Iran (pre 79) was doing farily well….
As far as traditional Moslems are concerned we ARE a threat, once they actualy read the Koran. We do have equal rights, and freedom of religion… things that are EXPRESSLY forbiden by the Koran.
The Wahabi movement is not an aberation, it is simply based on a literal reading of the Koran.
The “traditional” Moslem is the breeding ground of the Militant, but its because the very West’s freedoms and beliefs are a threat to any who strictly interpret the Koran…
Romeo13 on January 25, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Whose strategy is D’Souza talking about when he references trying to find and promote the Salman Rushdie’s of the muslim world?
As Bryan points out, its not the military’s strategy.
Is it Bush’s? If it is, he never talks about it. He’s gone out of his way to say that “democracy” in Iraq will not look like Illinois and that we have to understand and respect native Islamic culture.
Nobody is trying, as a matter of strategy, to turn ordinary Iraqi muslims into Brittany Spears fans but D’Souza runs off at the mouth like its my fault muslims hate me cos I like looking at nekkid women and allegedly want all muslim men to do the same. I’m no leftist, but if its a choice between looking at beautiful women resulting in pissed off muslims, versus some sort of Neo-puritanism in the states, well, Achmed (and D’Souza) better get prepared to hate me some more cos I ain’t givin’ it up.
Fred on January 25, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Bad example.
Perchant on January 25, 2007 at 12:31 PM
If you want to read an inspiring book, read D’Souza’s “What’s So Great About America”. D’Souza’s family came to America as immigrants from India. With intelligence and hard work, they have prospered. D’Souza obtained a doctorate and has been prominent in conservative circles since he worked for a time in the Reagan Administration.
Like converted Catholics are often said to be “more Catholic than the Pope”, immigrnat and naturalized American Citizen D’Souza is an erudite and unabashed American Patriot.
DavePa on January 25, 2007 at 12:36 PM
This is the thing that gets to me. D’Souza says in the interview:
“We think that a little sexual tomfoolery is nothing compared to cutting of a man’s head and broadcasting the assassination on the Internet. But for many Muslims, it’s bad to kill a man but it’s worse to strip away his honor. This is why some traditional Muslims are reluctant to condemn their radical counterparts. They don’t want to be seen as taking the side of Western depravity, a depravity that my book shows to be the product of contemporary liberalism.”
He’s getting into Jimmy-Carter-excusing-Palestinian-suicide-bombing territory here. He seems to be saying that the traditional Muslim grievance against the West’s sexual immorality is legitimate. We shoudn’t be willing to cede the point that women’s sexual freedom is a bad thing. So what if our women are uncovered and sometimes they like to fool around? We shouldn’t apologize for that.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with our western depravity. For D’Souza to imply that there is (just so he can blame liberals for it) takes him off the field of reasonable discourse, in my view.
Say it with me: I love our Western depravity
Enrique on January 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Fred! Salute!
You can have my Playboy when you pry my cold dead fingers away from it…
Romeo13 on January 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM
I’m not siding with D’Souza on that point, but the world is more complex than you think it is, Enrique.
Bryan on January 25, 2007 at 1:00 PM
I couldn’t agree more. While many on the right talk about liberals being defeatists or appeasers this guy comes off as the ultimate appeaser. I’ve never heard one liberal advocate that Americans change their lifestyles to placate Muslims extremists, which is exactly what D’Souza seems to be saying. If we just stop being so immoral maybe they won’t hate us so much–sorry I’m not changing my lifestyle for anyone, especially jihadists–if that’s not defeatist I don’t know what is.
HD porn is on the way–let’s see how they like that!
I love our Western depravity
JaHerer22 on January 25, 2007 at 1:01 PM
I’m filled with gobsmacking heartache over what D’Souza says. Isn’t his thesis just a riff off of “we deserved it”? As long as we’re good dhimmis and don’t offend anyone, we can get along great with the bad guys.
Reading his debate with Glazov is shocking.
He’s nuts. I’m putting him in the same category as the Loose Change guys because, he’s living in a fantasy world just like them.
mrflashman on January 25, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Well, you’ve been to Iraq, so I’ll give you that. :)
But can I get some props for a little Western depravity? Holla.
Enrique on January 25, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Word, bro.
Enrique on January 25, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I’m not going to base my hopes in this war on depravity, no, and I don’t think cheering it on is wise or that a society that cheers it on will survive for very long. I’m more than happy that we have the freedom to be depraved though.
Bryan on January 25, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Right. On that we are totally on the same page.
Enrique on January 25, 2007 at 2:51 PM
There. Fixed that for you. In Western civilization we have the freedom to choose. Many individuals who are members of our society choose to be enslaved. Depravity is slavery. Of course, Enrique and JaHerer22 will NOT agree. No matter. Judging by the following reference, it is not ME that they disagree with:
You guys should really be more careful about how you word things. Now that you have given me:
you can count on me quoting you two guys on this relentlessly (or at least until Bryan bans me). I consider that fair, however. honora would do no less to me.
Oh yeah, and BTW, you guys know who INVENTED depravity, don’t you? (Hint:It WASN’t Al Gore.) Okay honora, go ahead and tell them (you KNOW the answer).
CyberCipher on January 25, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Richard Dawkins?
Enrique on January 25, 2007 at 4:19 PM
The question is whether the West will gain allies in the Muslims world to separate “traditional” Muslims from “radical” Muslims. Cheerleading Western depravity will not help the West gain traditional allies against the radicals. In fact, it obviously will only radicalize the traditionalists. Is the West depraved? I think it is, and that’s a bad thing. You might think it is, and that it’s a good thing. But whether it is or it isn’t, SAYING it is, and CELEBRATING that it is, will not gain us allies against Radical Muslims.
I happen to think D’Souza is wrong that we can gain allies with Traditional Muslims anyway, irrespective of our depravity. I think that traditional Muslims will not side with us against the radicals, because the radicals and the traditional Muslims share a cultural connection to Islam. Even if America were not depraved, traditional Muslims still would not side with us against the radicals simply because we’re not Muslim. It’s a basic cultural divide. Depravity, to the extent it has anything to do with things, will only make it worse for us. I don’t see how it can be a net positive.
And for the record, a person celebrating depravity is a complete idiot. Next thing they’ll be asking for is the return of the Colosseum and games of death by willing participants for our amusement. Celebrating sickness is itself sickness.
Sydney Carton on January 25, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Eve?
JaHerer22 on January 25, 2007 at 4:46 PM
But as a practical matter, depravity is the by product of a free society. By celebrating depravity (by which I mean depravity that harms no one outside of the participants therein, e.g., recreational substance abuse, the sexual practices depicted the Dustin “Screech” Diamond video, etc.) I’m only celebrating the greatness of America.
Are you questioning my patriotism? :)
Enrique on January 25, 2007 at 5:26 PM
The freedom to be evil is not a virtue.
spmat on January 25, 2007 at 5:33 PM
It seems to me that D’ Souza’s basic premise is that human beings are basically decent, and can get along if they all show each other a little respect.
When Islam was derived-created-revealed the pillars of what would become western civilization already existed. Greek Philosophy, Judeo-Christian religion, Roman Law, Germanic Individualism. Islam could have incorporated any and all of these concepts into its tenets. Yet it explicitly rejected them all. D’Souza mentions that any Islamic reformation would entail returning to its roots, the core of the religion. That core in inherently hostile to western thought. While an Islamic reformation may heal the rift between Shia and Sunni, it will do nothing to end the animosity between Islam and the rest of the world.
It seems the only thing the Muslim world is willing to take from the west is its knowledge of the physical world. The philosophies that gave rise to the quest for that knowledge can burn.
Iblis on January 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM
“By celebrating depravity (by which I mean depravity that harms no one outside of the participants therein, e.g., recreational substance abuse, the sexual practices depicted the Dustin “Screech” Diamond video, etc.) I’m only celebrating the greatness of America.”
Depravity that harms no one outside of participants therein includes the example I gave: death contents in the Colosseum by willing participants. That is still depravity.
I wouldn’t exactly call that the “greatness of America.” And I don’t think depravity is a “byproduct” of freedom. Are all free people depraved? I don’t think so. And are people depraved in countries that have less freedom? Of course. And is it correct to say that depravity makes you a slave to sin? Yes.
You might want to rethink some things, Mr. Enrique.
Sydney Carton on January 25, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Wishful thinking on Richard’s part, although I am sure that he’d LOVE to take the credit. He seems to THRIVE on notoriety — ANY kind of notoriety. But that doesn’t qualify him as the source of original depravity. Think of someone older. Much, much older — older even than honora.
CyberCipher on January 25, 2007 at 5:47 PM
SEXIST!!!!
Good thing honora’s not here, dude. You would be in SO MUCH trouble.
No, Eve was not the original source of depravity. Guess I’ll have to give you another hint. The inventor of depravity celebrates it (sorta’ like you and Enrique), but he is far more accomplished than both of you put together. You and Enrique are amateurish by comparison.
CyberCipher on January 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Sydney, just in case you didn’t know, Enrique serves here in a “representative” capacity as one of “our very own” resident atheists (that frequents the HotAir site). Even so, I must say that he doesn’t seem to be very good at it. I’ve seen congressmen that do a better job of representing their constituents.
CyberCipher on January 25, 2007 at 6:07 PM
So far I count 6 commenters who are each quite correct from my viewpoint. As Bryan said “it ain’t simple, Ricky”.
I think this might be the rightest, though:
Nice.
Jaibones on January 25, 2007 at 6:09 PM
PS Bork was right, duh.
Jaibones on January 25, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Whether depravity is good or bad is not the issue.
I am just surprised that D’Souza would use that argument at all. It’s not a justification - at any level - for a group of people, religion, country, etc.. to attack us. The moment we cave on that issue - they have won a huge part of the battle.
Mike Younger
Stuart, Florida
MYounger on January 25, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Are you sure? He invented the internet after all, and we all know what the internet is for. But if he actually didn’t it must have been Larry Flynt!
Grunt2Jag on January 25, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Look dude, I’m just talking about maybe smoking some weed and watching a Girls Gone Wild DVD. It’s not a slippery slope to human sacrifice. (No, I don’t know that for sure, maybe it is. It’s just an educated guess on my part.)
But to go back to the D’Souza interview, my attention was piqued when he said: “If this was a war of competing fundamentalisms, then clearly the solution is secularism.”
Word. Would it really be so bad if we excused God from the public square? God can still be an important part of our private lives, but He doesn’t need to get involved in legislative decisions or foreign policy. We’re not offending Him by saying “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” I’m pretty sure He’s got a thick skin. If He has skin.
However, since Christianity and Judaism are effectively domesticated in the West, I am concerned about how we appeal to jihadists. I’m thinking that the only way we’re going to win against the Islamofascists is through stone cold, black-ops-style, f’-the-Geneva-Conventions CIA sh’t that the country just doesn’t have the stomach for at this point.
How do we force secularism on the Muslim world? This is what we need to figure out.
Do we just send them porn? I tend to think that suicide bombing is partly a reaction of sexual frustration brought on by restrictive relgious beliefs. Maybe if we sent porn, these embittered Muslim dudes would find a different outlet for their natural urges than this macabre quest for 72 virgins.
I know it could never be that simple. But wouldn’t it be great if it was?
Enrique on January 25, 2007 at 8:32 PM
You call yourself “educated”? I see that you subscribe to the philosphy that “If your’re going to tell a lie, tell a BIG one, and tell it often.”
This is, without a doubt, one of the sickest comments that I have EVER seen posted on the HotAir site — and I’ve seen some doozies. So let me see if I get this right. You want to encourage all of the billions of members of a world-wide religious cult which has its foundation BUILT on the abuse of women to do what?….find new and more reprehensible ways to abuse women.
(Shaking head in disbelief.) Now THERE’s a comment that deserves to have its poster banned if ever I have seen one.
I will be astonished if this slips past Bryan. I wonder what Michelle would say?
CyberCipher on January 25, 2007 at 9:23 PM
You know, Cipher… they’re doing wonderful things in mental institutions these days.
Watcher on January 25, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I believe that the incomparable Steven den Beste opined that we will have won over the Middle East when we are able to send them Barbie dolls, which I will grant to CyberCipher are exploitative of women, also, but still…
from what I’ve read of D’Souza’s book, he makes some good points but doesn’t quite get there; being a Muslim, he can’t quite seem to shake that Taliban-ish mentality.
Democracy and Freedom, which include freedom of speech and religion, must tolerate both the good and the bad, which would include porn.
We may not like it and it may be disgusting, but as one of our native patriots said, we must defend to the death peoples’ right to have it.
That is the current battle we are facing–With the great works of art and literature, go the porn, nudity and atheism in a free society.
Jen the Neocon on January 25, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Actually, I think D’Souza is a Catholic, not a Muslim.
Watcher on January 25, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Do people here take Enrique seriously? I’m trying to decide if responding to his last comment is worth it, at a minimum for the education of those other than him who are reading.
I mean, the guy seems to be blindly oblivious to the pathetic historical tragedy of forced atheism on people. A little perspective of how things operated in the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba should help. He seems, however, not only to lack historical knowledge, but a basic understanding of human psychology. You do not “force” beliefs on people. Even when the Communists in Russia “forced” atheism on the people, look what happened: Communism died, but the Russian Orthodox Church survives to this day, even stronger than before. Of course, there were decades of vicious persecution involved in an attempt to force thuggish secularism on an unwilling people. But Enrique probably figures that if you want an omelet, you gotta break some some eggs.
The ludicrous idea that sending PORN to the Middle East as a cure has got to be the Moron Comment of the Year (and it’s only January). I really don’t know how to respond to that, unless to say that if Enrique was joking, it’s not funny, and if he was serious, he needs to seek professional help.
The only redeeming quality to these posts of his is that they’re written in a sort of bubbleheaded, valley-girl-type stupidity that you have to at least give thanks that he’s not some militant atheist who can’t shut up about why he must spend 24-7-365 of his life attacking God, who of course, doesn’t exist, and thus people shouldn’t be so hung up over 24-7-365.
Sydney Carton on January 25, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Oh yeah?
Why is it that we only get causualty figures about US and Coalition forces in the war on terror, but very few on how many “radicals” have been killed?
Riddle me that…..
PinkyBigglesworth on January 25, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Oh my God, Sydney take a vanax and get some sleep.
VinceP1974 on January 26, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Zanax .. I knew that was wrong.
VinceP1974 on January 26, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I enjoy many of your posts, Jen, but you are wrong on THIS one. I love free speech as much or more than the most zealous HotAir participant here. I will defend it fiercely — even to the death if necessary. But THAT’S NOT the issue here.
The flaw in your argument is not in your logic or even in your classification of porn as free speech. The problem is in the silent premise that you accepted at the outset. You are presuming that pornogography is ONLY free speech or freedom of expression. It is not. Sure — pornography can fall under the broad category of free speech, but so does hate speech. And we all know that hate speech is not JUST speech — or freedom of expression. It goes way beyond that. That’s why there are now laws on the books (at least in some states) against hate speech. Pornography is worse than hate speech. Pornography advocates the subjugation and humiliation of women along with acts of physical violence against women. It preaches that this violence is “normal behavior”. The producers of this vile stuff try to defend the violence under the banner of “freedom of speech”. If you don’t think that pornography advocates violence against women, then you haven’t seen the stuff that I am talking about. And it’s not rare, it’s common. If you don’t believe me, my two teenage boys can tell you all about it. (And no, it’s not that I am a bad parent. I’m divorced and my boys have not lived with me for many, many years.)
CyberCipher on January 26, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Vince,
You’re right. I was way too harsh. Enrique didn’t deserve it, yet.
Sydney Carton on January 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Yes. I know. I own one of them.
CyberCipher on January 26, 2007 at 12:20 AM
God help us all.
Watcher on January 26, 2007 at 12:28 AM
CC, maybe I should restate the argument: as awful, disgusting and exploitative as porn certainly is, the fact that it is tolerated in a free, democratic society is the whole point.
That is why, as much as I despise porn, I am still against “hate” laws and classification of things as “hate” speech.
This is government overreach.
You see, the problem is defining porn or hate and who defines it as such.
The beauty of America is not that we “glorify” porn or licentiousness or immortality, as D’Souza maintains, but that we give our citizens the liberty to choose for themselves to “pursue happiness” as they see fit as long as it doesn’t encroach on another’s right to do the same.
As long as proper filters for protecting children are in place, it’s up to adults to decide if they want to pay for porn.
As an art historian, I try to look at this from a scholar’s viewpoint, and I’m still undecided as to whether viewing pornography “encourages” bad and criminal behavior.
I tend to think it doesn’t and it might even diminish some people’s proclivities, allowing them to enjoy their nastiness vicariously rather than acting it out, but who knows?
Are we fighting this war for Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner? Yes, but also for Jesus, Mozart, Anne Frank, Michelangelo, Mendelsohn, Picasso, Modigliani, Baudelaire, Salmon Rushdie and Henry Miller, among others.
This is where Islamist societies get into trouble: they don’t just ban porn, they ban all art and all movies and all books that aren’t the Koran.
Women have to be covered from head to toe, literally, because even one glimpse of flesh is considered a sin.
We’re a great country because we’re a free country and I want to keep it that way, porn and all.
Jen the Neocon on January 26, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Jen,
You need to change your handle from
Jen the Neocon
to
Jen the Libertarian
Libertarians and conservatives share many of the same (or similar) views on many issues, but not ALL of the same views. I understand your argument, and I respect it, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I have a Libertarian streak myself — and I hate government overreach as well. My Libertarian zeal, however, is tempered by my belief in a righteous and holy God who is the absolute moral authority on all issues in life. I guess that I am a dinosaur in that respect. I DON’T believe in shades of grey. I may be one of the last inhabitants of planet earth that actually believes that right and wrong are absolutes (black and white).
CyberCipher on January 26, 2007 at 1:04 AM
It interests me that D’Souza, who is so perceptive about America and its decaying culture, is much less perceptive about Islam. I wish him and others Much Luck in their search for these traditional-but-not-fundamentalist Muslims who value democracy and and science, but…..
the Other Guy had better points to make, and made them better–especially about having to go back many centuries to find a Europe with which Islam can be compared.
It ain’t 1096, ladies and gentlemen. And Islam is not ‘liberalizing’ but turning inward and backwards, and the result is Already Ugly and likely to get much, much uglier
now I’m depressed again; how about another Trump thread?
Janos Hunyadi on January 26, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Looking forward to following Michelle’s link to Robert & Hugh, where I’m sure D’Souza is finely minced.
One of my long-standing problems with D’Souza is that at times he can be lazy. His instincts aren’t terrible - he pretty much called this one on the money - but he doesn’t provide a lot of research to support his guesswork. In instances like this he can let himself be dangerously misled.
JaHerer I wanted to pick up on something you were pointing out:
Yeah - he parrots (in his best Stockholm Swedish) the same argument hawked by the grievance-mongers themselves: that pointing out the character flaws of the psychopathic architect-in-chief, Mohammed, is liable to chase any “moderates”, if there are any, right into the arms of the “radicals” - as if we tip the scales one way or the other, as if they’ve been waiting all their lives to find out what we think.
Pushing them toward radicalism? It’s not like Dinesh is trying to talk us out of lining up millions of Muslims and shooting them at point-blank range (well, most of us anyway); he’s suggesting we shouldn’t confront them verbally or hold them accountable for their own bad behavior!
If Western-style accountability is supposed to be some kind of big psychic trauma for them, and we’re just supposed to buy that at face value, then I’m sorry - it’s pretty much a given we’re being taken for suckers.
Funny about D’Souza… he still thinks we can worm our way into their good graces and “buy them off”, culturally speaking, and in that way turn them to be our friends. Deluded soul. And, by spending his energy advocating the idea, it’s also clear he thinks it’s a worthy goal to pursue. Twice deluded…
Yep… typical example of extrapolating nonsense from source data because of an invalid model…
RD on January 26, 2007 at 6:49 AM
dinesh is right, and i listened to him make a point on Cavuto last week
the cultural left is waging a war of cultural imperialism across the globe. hes completely right; planned parenthood expanding daily, having children go in there without parental notification. muslims hear of these things like this, and become outraged and end up hating americans.
however i feel that sheer religion is also a huge motivator.
while, from my experience, the Qur’an does not provide explicit ammunition for the likes of Osama, I feel the Hadith does. so many Surat in the book can be taken literally for Jihad.
the worldwide cultural left doesnt help either. remember, it is a clash of civilizations, no doubt about it; and culture is part of our civilizations. they see our decadence in modern movies today. the sex, drugs, etc, and they feel their values are under siege. not to say their hardline views are any better.
i think too many people on this board are blowing off dinesh’s point.
and before anyone demonizes me, im all for blowing up bad Muslimeen just as much as the next guy. im takin their language so i can help do it.
i think we need to realize its a combination, and not a single reason applies to all extremists or radicals. 2 or 3 christians bomb abortion clinics over history. why? they feel their values threatened..and theyre a little nuts.
for some Muslims, its their religion, others, their fear of their values under siege
blatantblue on January 26, 2007 at 9:39 AM
I don’t read this a s appeasement, but rather as understanding that we are desirous that the Muslim world become more democratic, to which the Muslim powers that be point to western depravity as the ultimate outcome of democracy. Moderate Muslims will not embrace western democratic ideals if it means their children will lose their virginity by the age of fourteen, and their faith will be pushed out of public view. They feel they have better than that right now. Can there be a middle-eastern style of democracy that does not require absolute religious freedom? Can a government of, by and for a faithful people work as well, if not better, than a government of, by and for a “depraved” people? And, can there be a third road, a secular one, which asks both radicals and moderates,”we see what prayer and faith can destroy, but what great things are prayer and faith alone capable of building?”
shuzilla on January 26, 2007 at 10:15 AM
D’Souzas 4th of July column a few years ago is one of my favourite pieces of writing on the planet. Did you guys see it? How in America, everyday people are called “Sir” and it goes on and on. It’s amazing.
One of Mark Steyn’s BEST suggestions in his book America Alone is that we (the West) help women prod things along. A lot of Muslim women-he says-probably don’t want to start off life with a clitorectomy and end it being “honour killed” by a father or brother.
When enough Muslim women are supported in their rightful quest for personal and religious freedom, I believe we will start to see changes in the Muslim world.
WriterMom on January 26, 2007 at 1:30 PM
For me, the Freedom House report trumps any trouble we’re alleged to be causing. Fix the problem you’re suggesting, and this doesn’t change one bit, as they hate us for our religion and our graduation gowns:
The underlying problem is the doctrine of Islam itself. In a world where all cultures are equally visible from all points in the globe by satellite telecommunications, people themselves now have to be responsible for how they react to the behavior of other cultures. So what do we do? Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/Yezidis/… go about their business, like responsible adults, while the Muslim umma makes one never-ending federal case out of it.
RD on January 26, 2007 at 1:32 PM
RD i dont disagree with what you say
i feel some of the roots of Islam, specifically in the Hadith, are what many are taught for extremism. however, not EVERY Muslim is some extremist. i think what i should have made clear is..
the global left’s cultural INSANITY doesnt help us. is it the single root cause? no. is it a cause for SOME? yes, i would surmise (i think my christian bombing abortion clinic case is a suitable analogy). not every muslim is involved with Jihad, but im sure many of those not involved feel a personal affront when they see these cultural moves made by the far left around the world.
the mans values, he feels, were under siege..so what does he do?
i think this is further reason for why we should cleanse ourselves of lifestyle left wing insanity.
i dont think its any one set thing. I feel the Hadith is the largest influence; its Sura’s provide so much inspiration for these maniacs. i just think the lefts cultural imperialism doesnt help.
is that foolhearty? i think not
blatantblue on January 26, 2007 at 6:04 PM
It wouldn’t matter how pure the West was. Remember Muslims don’t hate you and want to kill you because you’re a pure person. They hate you and want to kill you because their Koran commands it. Now the Muslims that we like simply ignore the Koran’s death warrant on anyone who isn’t a Muslim. They flourish in a modern world because they don’t act on the mandates of the Koran. I know their are a few verses that speak of there being no compulsion in religion but those verses are abrogated by the later verses (the Medina writings) that command death for Jews, Christians, et al. At the very least non-Muslims become slaves who are humiliated and abused at every turn.
We in the West are presented with quite a conundrum. We must strengthen those who themselves may turn on us when they become more serious about their “faith.” Trying times indeed.
Mojave Mark on January 27, 2007 at 12:01 AM
And now it’s Chuck Norris vs Alan Colmes!
Tony737 on January 27, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Thanks blatantblue. And I certainly don’t disagree with your point that the global left’s mores - as advertised 24/7/365 in 16.8 million colors around the globe - must inflame the passions of all the world’s traditional cultures, which must look on with incredulity and disgust at some of the things they see.
And given that Islam has required its followers to struggle until its proscribed way of life was imposed as far as it could see & hear, the fact of new technologies bringing other vibrant (or decaying) cultures into its proverbial living room poses an entirely new challenge for the ideology-cum-faith. Because, when the known world expands from one where Islam is pervasive/hegemonic into one where Islam is but a minor player - and that fact of life is rubbed in one’s face 24/7 - what alternative is there but to resume the struggle until Islam is speread to the new boundaries?
But D’Souza goes further than this, as if to imply/argue that (1) Islam is somehow consolable, AND (2) that his proscription would console it; that, if the West was somehow to reject hedonism, and our TV broadcasts portrayed traditional Christian piety, man-made law and good works, that Muslims would find this invasion of their living rooms less objectionable and more compatible than the 24/7 sex/noise sewer pipe they field today. In other words, even if the “problem” isn’t exactly our “fault”, at least we have some way to control or defuse it, and that way is to adopt D’Souza’s proscriptions for a Better Culture.
What some see as self-evident and wise, I see as rank projection, a substitution of his own ends and reasoning for that of the Islamists. He might give up his own struggle if a more traditional American culture were restored, but I don’t think we can say the same for the worldwide umma, now that its conscience is alerted to the wider world (no matter how that was brought about).
Until he deals with the imperatives of Islam itself, he’s presenting false options. He also doesn’t deal with the mounting evidence of how psychological pressure of all kinds, not just an imagined disgust with Western culture, has a way of taking ordinary, rational, “peace-loving” Muslims and turning them into the worst kind of jihad-shihada zealots.
He doesn’t explain these points, or even appear to understand them. Instead he projects what he believes he would think, feel and act if he were Muslim, without understanding what Islamic scripture requires its denizens to think, feel and act. That is a monumental oversight that has gotten him into trouble intellectually. It will continue to mislead him. I don’t see how he could reach conclusions like these through anything but intellectual laziness. In this day and age, 5 years post-9/11, such laziness-induced myopia is unacceptable IMHO.
RD on January 28, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Amen, Mojave Mark!
RD on January 28, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Sorry for the bad link earlier, here it is: he was dead-right about Rigoberta Menchu being a fraud. And he writes well, no doubts there…
RD on January 28, 2007 at 12:55 PM