• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fallaci: "This is what I write about Europe..

Very nice but that wasn't really my question. Do we have to combat islamic extremism?
Yes.


Every person is a potentiaI islamist.. relativism always works. What is moderate Islam other then a term we invented to separate muslim extremists, and even then you could argue that one extremist differs from the other.
No, I don't understand your point. Of course every person is a potential islamist, just as every person is a potential Nazi, Commie, Republican, whatever. Not all observant Moslems are likely to join the Islamist or Wahhabist factions, the ones that plan and execute terrorist attacks. Not all Christians are going to join the WBC, the Lord's Resistance Army or the abortion clinic bombers. Some people are drawn to extremism, others not.


I'm sure George Galloway may have made a true statement at some point, but I wouldn't expect you to accord that true statement much credibility given the entirety of his actions and statements. All liars and demagogues can make truthful, even insightful statements. That doesn't stop them from being liars and demagogues.
 

Pipes 'article' consists for 90% out of quotes, the only opinion it contains is about the quality of Fallaci's work.
As you point out too delicately, andalublue engaged in the classic Fallacy -- ad hom debate.

Going something like "Because Hitchens says something bad about Pipes, we can't rely on anything he says". (!)

Which is not only Ridiculous, but as you also point out, pretty irrelevant to even mention in such a short piece that basically only quotes Fallaci anyway.
And further.. bizarrely assumes Hitchens is some kind of ultimate authority.
In fact, agree with Pipes or not, HE'S the one with the credentials on Islam.

Andalublue always engages in Disingenuous (at best) debate. Were I to indulge/continue that inanity, I need only find someone else who says something bad about Hitchens...
ad infinitum, ad absurdem.

(For the record, I do like/Have quoted Hitch when's he's not hungover or just plain contrary.)
 
Last edited:

Daniel, is that you? It must be because of this:
In fact, agree with Pipes or not, HE'S the one with the credentials on Islam.

A phrase only Pipes and Old Mother Pipes would be able to write and keep a straight face.
 
Didn't want to answer immediately - better for a self-controlled tactical bump when it moves down the page.

As usual andalublue's claims are Preposterous and show absolutely NO knowledge.
Ridiculous.

I think it only fair to use the same source for both Hitchens' and Pipes' "credentials on Islam".

Christopher Hitchens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyone see ANYTHING in there about Muslims? Islam/Islamic history? Arabic? Middle East travel? Middle East residence?
NADA.


Daniel Pipes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is so overwhelmingly made now, one can be sure we'll get another utterly bogus reply.
Tho it certainly can't be any more bogus or embarrassing than the last.
 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…