Amazon.com Widgets

Thursday, October 2, 2003

The Guantánamo Arrests - What Do They Mean?

The transcript is now posted from the Daniel Pipes appearance on the O'Reilly Factor the other evening. The email also came with some explanation that's relevant to the discussion we had here.

Dear Reader: I usually send out transcripts without commentary, but I feel impelled to say a few words to introduce the transcript that follows:
Eltantawi and I are interviewed sequentially here because I refuse to debate her or other representatives of the militant Islamic lobby. Who the television producers put on after me, however, I do not attempt to control.

Eltantawi says some pretty interesting things. Perhaps most so is her nonchalance that "less than a quarter of a percentage of American Muslims" serving in the U.S. military are accused of criminal violence.

The most amusing point is when Eltantawi gravely insists that "the Defense Department and the FBI know more about this [problem of Muslim criminality] than people like Daniel Pipes" and O'Reilly laughingly replies "Obviously they don’t. We have three people arrested at Guantánamo Bay at the terrorist camps. Obviously, the FBI doesn’t know."

And the most inaccurate point is when Eltantawi ascribes to me the view that "all American Muslims be suspended from their positions until they can, quote, prove their loyalty." What I wrote in my column this week was that "presently employed Muslim personnel who got their jobs through those [suspect] institutions" should be suspended until their loyalty can be confirmed. Even after O'Reilly demurred from her version of what I said, she insisted "It’s a quote from his article, Bill. It is a quote from the article."

Yours, Daniel Pipes


I personally feel that Pipes makes a mistake not preparing for and taking these people on head-to-head, but that's something he's obviously already considered and decided against for whatever reason. Perhaps he's just decided that there's no way for him to come off well in such a mud-slinging debate. I think O'Reilly was wrong to allow Pipes to be impugned when he knew he wasn't going to be responding, but again, maybe the fact that most of the response was an ad hominem against Dr. Pipes spoke for itself.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]