[Sherman Logan]

"a provocatively dressed woman walking in a back street alley of the city makes herself vulnerable as a target for rapists".

VDH's argument is that it doesn't matter what the woman is wearing. If it isn't a burka, she is "asking for it."

Dinesh's argument is that if a woman dresses sufficiently provocatively, she considerably increases the likelihood that she will be attacked.

As you say, I think there is some truth on each side. But I lean toward VDH.

[Alia]

I concur; but only when we specify the line of argumentation.

Both gentlemen are presenting from slightly different angles.

VDH's argument is that it doesn't matter what the woman is wearing. If it isn't a burka, she is "asking for it."

True.

Dinesh's argument is that if a woman dresses sufficiently provocatively, she considerably increases the likelihood that she will be attacked

And if the Dems have their way with halting funding for the WOT, the US will be attacked again whether or not we are wearing burkas.

VDH argues that no matter what we do, Islamofascists hate us and want us dead.

Dinesh argues that with what the US Dems are on about, this will happen sooner rather than later.

[steve-b]

Dinesh's argument is that if a woman dresses sufficiently provocatively, she considerably increases the likelihood that she will be attacked.

There is a kernel of truth in his comments about historical leftist foreign policy weaknesses* (equivalent to pointing out that a woman who carries a gun and is willing to use it is unlikely to be raped no matter what she wears).

That said, his cultural arguments are simply blame-America drivel, no more worthy of respect than those of Noam Chomsky.

*In fairness, conservatives have sometimes been guilty as well -- e.g. Reagan's retreat after the Marine barracks bombing -- and an intellecutally honest commentator would have noted that fact.