On Scarborough Country, Buchanan said Islam "is a fighting faith" while Crusades were launched to "take back what we had lost!"
While discussing Pope Benedict XVI's recent controversial comments about Islam, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan declared three times that Islam "is a fighting faith." During the discussion, which took place on the September 18 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough asked: "[D]espite the fact ... there are Muslim extremists ... do you not think that this pope should ... reach out to moderate Muslim regimes?" Buchanan replied, "How do you think Islam came out of Arabia, captured the Holy Land, all of North Africa, occupied all of Spain and Portugal ... except by the sword?" When Scarborough pleaded that he did not "want to refight the crusades," Buchanan declared Christians fought the Crusades "[t]o take back what we had lost!"
From a segment featuring Scarborough, Buchanan, and Huffington Post blogger Arianna Huffington on the September 18 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: Now, despite the fact, again, that we know that there are Muslim extremists across the world, I will ask again, do you not think that this pope should have done what the last pope did, bite his tongue, try to build a bridge, and try to say that, you know, maybe we can reach out to moderate Muslim regimes?
BUCHANAN: But look, look, he said what he said, Joe. Let me tell you something. How do you think Islam came out of Arabia, captured the Holy Land, all of North Africa, occupied all of Spain and Portugal and drove all the way to --
SCARBOROUGH: Well, I don't want, I don't want to refight the Crusades, Pat --
[crosstalk]
BUCHANAN: -- in a hundred years, except by the sword, Joe? This is a fighting faith!
[crosstalk]
HUFFINGTON: Joe, can I ask Pat something?
BUCHANAN: Its history is a fighting faith!
SCARBOROUGH: But hold on a second. I don't want to start a battle about the Crusades right now.
BUCHANAN: It's not the Crusades! How do you think Islam conquers? It is a fighting faith!
SCARBOROUGH: I understand that, but I also understand that Muslims would say that Christians launched the Crusades. There's violence --
BUCHANAN: To take back what we had lost!
SCARBOROUGH: There's violence on both sides.
HUFFINGTON: But you know, this is really a ludicrous conversation, frankly.
BUCHANAN: It is not! It's a historical conversation.
[crosstalk]
HUFFINGTON: Yes, it is. For now -- to be refighting the Crusades, when so much is at stake at the moment, and to be saying that what we did as Christians in the Crusades was justified because it was in reaction to what had happened is simply to perpetuate the cycle of action and reaction, where there is absolutely no reconciliation possible.
BUCHANAN: All right, I know that --
HUFFINGTON: And basically, the way you are talking makes me believe that you're actually endorsing the statement made by the 14th century emperor [cited by the pope] --
BUCHANAN: No, I'm not, what I'm saying --
[crosstalk]
SCARBOROUGH: Pat, hold on a second. Let me ask, Pat, are you endorsing the pope's statement?
BUCHANAN: I am not endorsing what the 14th century emperor said because I do believe Islam has created great beauty and a great civilization, quite frankly. But I am saying this. Appeasement and constant apologies are not the way to go! There's no reason why we have to apologize for the Crusades, any more than they have to apologize for --
[crosstalk]
SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know -- hold on a second! Arianna, I'm looking at both of you right now talking, and I'm looking, by the way, just for those who wouldn't believe it in the audience, with two people who actually agreed that [President] George [W.] Bush shouldn't have gone into Iraq, so this is not some battle over what's going on now.
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
"They're a fighting faith!' Which hasn't made a successful military conquest since 1683. Scary Scary Scary!
America wasn't even around back then! I know - someone playing "ROME - Total War, Barbarian Invasion" did an online apology via chat. That's it, yeah...
crap on Bill Press' show this morning. what a pant load. but as long as history is still in play, don't forget the Spanish Inquisition, the Jesuit destruction of indigenous religion in the New World, the "Christian" schools that beat Indian children who spoke their native language.
Actually, Buchanan's history is more correct than not.
Check out The Real History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden. An excerpt:
Cheers.
That we ought not feel remorse for killing Muslims since they're inherently evil? Errant bombs that blow up women and children are of no consequence because the victims hated us? Should we kill them all?
I'm not making assumptions about your intentions. These are honest questions. It seems that some sort of rationalization for genocide is roiling on the fringe of your demeanor. I hope I'm wrong.
Maybe this will help.
The entire premise of this thread's criticism of Joe Scarborough is that he failed to adequately challenge Buchanan's statement about the aggressive nature of Islam, yet we see in the transcript that Scarborough DID question this.
Shoe's post from a prominent historian impeaches the entire basis of the Scarborough-Huffington criticism we see here. Buchanan's view is shown to be more right on history than the others using this historical text as the standard. It is THEY who have a more distorted view of the history of the Crusades, and it is also quite likely it is THEY who have the more distorted view of Islam and its intentions.
Since you seem to share Huffington's view of Islam and the Crusades, it would do you world view good to read this history book.
Now, about feeling bad over collateral damage.... would you not also argue that we should feel bad about the millions of German and Japanese civilians who died as a result of allied bombibg campaigns during WWII. And if you held that view, just to be consistent, would you also argue that the war against Axis tyrany was an ujust war as I have seen you argue against this war against Islamic Tyrany?
I see now the context from which shoes is operating.
What in my post led you to believe that I'm inconsistent with regards to civilian deaths? Granted war is sometimes unavoidable but that will not change my opinion of civilian casualties. The actions of foreign governments do not necessarily reflect the will of its people. Why should there be no concern for the slaughter of innocent people? Maybe I misread you but you seem to be able to more easily condone collateral death in the name of war than I can. That's your right, so be it.
Now, to address your contention that I oppose countering fundamental extremism you could not be further off base. The occupation of Iraq and the implementation of conventional warfare to combat terrorism is just not a sensible approach. Global intelligence cooperation and law enforcement tactics is more sound in my opinion and should be given an opportunity to succeed
And furthermore, since you seem embrace the notion that Islam is a violent religion, should we simply kill all Muslims?
A law enforcenment approach to Holy War has been ineffective. The Clinton Administration did little else beyond treating the Islamofascists as criminals. We see where that led... straight to 9-11.
The issue here is a difficult one for most westerners and modernists to grasp. What has happened is this: A religious sect, Wahabi Islam, has declared war on us. This is something not seen in the West since the 16th crentury, when religions in Europe were declaring war upon one another. The "Intellectual Elites" snicker and smile at this and describe it as a 'meduieval mentality', etc. Meanwhile, these medieval mentalities continue to be deadly serious in their desire to kill Americans.
Wahabbists of various stripes are thought to represent approximately 15% of all Muslims. This is far from any sort of majority amongst them. More troubling is data which indicate the vast majority of Muslims the world over both sympathize with the goals of Hezbollah/Hamas to destroy Israel and sizeable fraction of Muslims sympathize with Al Qaeda and its allies is their struggle with the United States.
Who is the enemy? Sound arguments can be made that it is a large fraction of Islam. The Left in America wants to believe that it is only the few tens of thousands of Wahabbists actively engaged in Al Qaeda. I think they are wrong. I think the enemy includes all the "civilians" who support their cause with their money and their sons. This last definition is that we used in the struggle against Nazi HGermany and Imperial Japan. It was even that used by General Willam T. Sherman against the South in the American Civil War.
he's no hero in my book. But I reject the notion that he is responsible for September 11, 2001. Don't bother trying to convince me that if he had only gotten Bin Laden all would be right with the world. It is pure speculation that no such plot as 9/11 would have been conceived and executed in the absence of one lunatic. Besides it seems to me that law enforcement efforts foiled the recent London bomb plots and where plots were successful Madrid, London etc. troops in Iraq made no difference.
The military regimes of Germany and Japan left their citizens no choice but to acquiesce.
Israel and Hamas seem to be bent on destroying each other over territory. Yes that's a ludicrous struggle with civilians dying and is in need of rational intervention. As far as I know though, neither side is scheming to attack the U.S.
Al Qaeda sympathizers are just that; sympathizers who have no standing army to oppose the foreign occupiers. Without the occupation sympathy dries up and Al Qaeda is left on the fringe of society. Is it impossible to think that extremists can be neutralized while simultaneously including moderates instead of providing cause to eliminate the whole group?
This ceased to be a diplomatic conflict years ago.
They most certainly do have a standing army, a guerilla army of Jihadists. And these Jihadists have shown themselves to be the worst sort of murdering thugs imagineable. Such persons are directly responsible for the murders and rapes of Darfur. They are responsible for the savagery and genocide in East Timor. They are responsible for the persecution and murders of Christians in Nigeria. They are behind these bombings in the west and most of the bombings in Iraq and a whole host of other violent acts committed on at lest 5 continents. [South America and Antartica are the only places I haven't heard of Jihaddi violence in the last few years] They are fanatics.
There have been no further attacks in the US. Clinton's legal enforcement policy saw the 1993 WTC bombing and the planning and staging of what would become 9-11. All the places there have been attacks contain[ed] unrestrained Jihadists. These places all share some degree of tolerance and local sympathy for these thugs. The greater the Jihadi base of support, the more violence they commit.
This is further evidence that we are involved in a war, not a crime, and that bin Laden is not a lone lunatic but rather one leader of an organized guerilla army, as much as the left wants to pretend all this is the work of a few individual nut jobs.
The reason Sherman burned his way through Georgia was his belief that to break the back of the Confederacy you had to break the will of its civilian supporters to sustain war. I believ that to end this Jihad, its supporters must have their will broken. Precisely how is that going to be accomplished by further appeasement and negotiation? I can see how it might be accomlpished by means of sufficient violence [war].
Thank you for your time. We must agree to disagree at this time and give ourselves time to regain composure. Certainly in the future we can revisit this topic. Peace.
You make some valid points.
Here's what I see. You outlined an expansive global battleground. Like it or not the current administration has failed to convince the rest of the world to help. Why? Because of the fiasco that is Iraq. In fact Iraq is the central impediment to global cooperation and promulgator of discontent among sympathizers. This is not to marginalize the effect of radicalized Islam however, the occupation of Iraq serves to legitimize the cause of the extremists.
As to your Sherman analogy it does not apply. The civil war was not a global campaign nor did it involve two opposing religious ideologies. It was an intracontinental conflict between two primarily christian factions.
refers to the modern concept of waging war in representative societies. In medieval times, war was the province of mercenies, men-at-arms and men of rank. Modern times have brought with them a return to the citizen army of the heyday of Ancient Greece and Rome. This kind of army does not derive its will to fight from a few hereditary nobles leading it as does a Medieval Army. It draws its strength from the support of the citizenry beneath it.
To defeat a modern citizen army one must break the will of its people. To. wit. Sherman takes the war to the civilians in Georgia. More recently, Nazi Germany attempted to bomb England into submission, failed, and later was itself bombed to ruin. In the present context, the Jihadi army draws its support from the people who hide and protect it. Make them pay a high enough price for doing so and the Jihadists will fail.
Another issue: In an era of mass communication, Propaganda has a powerful effect on the will of a people to fight. This is what has been so ruinous about the obvious lef-wing tilt in the mainstream media. Israel did not start the recent fighting in Golan, Hezbollah did. Hezbollah violated many, perhaps even most, rules of warfare outlined in the Geneva conventions, yet with the complicity of the ignorant editors of Reuters and CNN were able to hoodwink a huge number of people into sympathy with them. This principle was most forcefullly demonstrated in Vietnam, where a murderous communist invasion succeded despite failing to win a single major military victory all by propaganda.
You have spelled it out for me. The only logical conclusion I can draw from your post is that we would best be served to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and level every single outpost of tyrany with nuclear bombs. Have a nice day I'm done with you.
Your irrational leap to that level is non-sequitur, not flowing from the concept of war derived from Sherman.
Open question: What more do these Islamofascists need to do to convince you they are a threat and must be neutralized? "law enforcement" is not going to succeed in the face of an enemy guerilla army embedded within the civilian population of a foreign country.
As far as I can tell you are endorsing a policy of attacking civilians to break the will of our enemy. Unfortunately that won't work here. The more civilians that are attacked the more terrorists and their sympathizers and enablers are born. This is why Lebanon recieved sympathy, or more than the Israelis who also had civilian casualties. Israel with the help of our government had much deadlier and more weaponry. The will of Hezbolah was not broke, they were enboldened and Israel has nothing to show for it but a black mark against them for their aggresion.
"This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers." -from 'Beyond Viet Nam' by Martin Luther King, 1967
Its how London dealt with their terrorism problem and they stopped a recent terrorist attempt. It seems like you are saying what we need to do is become monsters to attack monsters. I reject that as morally unacceptable. Of course Muslim extremist terrorists are a serious problem our only difference is HOW to deal with the problem. Attacking all of Islam is NOT the answer as far as I am concerned it will only excaberate the problem. In France in the 80's they had a terrorism problem with Algerian terrorists. They didnt invade Portugal. They targetted THOSE terrorists and killed them all across Europe about 8 in the next six months. That ended the problem. Its like the Montana ranchers. For decades they had a problem with losing stock to coyotes among the cleverest of all predators. When an unusually successful rancher was asked what he did he said he allowed coyotes to use his range for their territory. When he lost stock he tracked and killed THAT coyote. Most of the time the other coyotes used the range to hunt rabbits and mice and kept the more aggressive coyotes away and his killings of the ones that killed stock worked as an example. What we have done is let the coyote that actually killed our stock go free and randomly attacked other coyotes.
I have often said what I think we should do, no need to go over it. I reject out of hand killing innocents to make a point. It is evil period. That they do it doesnt change it from evil to acceptable it is the REASON they are evil.
"law enforcement" is not going to succeed...
How do you know?
That modern warfare has turned the tables. In the first world war 90% of the causalties were military now 90% of the casualties of most wars are civilians. For this reason alone the bar for warfare should be high.
As for your take on the Hezbollah/Israeli war I am not sure what you mean? The Golan Heights are Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Hezbollah and Israel fought after Hezbollah took two soldiers from Israel. Now this has been going on from both sides since the fifties they take soldiers then trade them for prisoners. In this instance Israel began bombing Lebanese civlian areas in retalitation. There is no dispute that Hezbollah before this and since the 2000 withdrawal of Israel from southern Lebanon had NOT attacked Israeli civilian areas.
Since 2000 there had been many such incursions from both sides. Was what Hezbollah did wrong? I think so, as I said both sides have done this before including Israel forcing down a civilian airliner to get hostages to trade for THEIR agents caught in Damascus. Then president Sharett admitted this was the reason in his biography. Of course this was the fifties, but it has been going on since. Six months before an Israeli agent killed the leader of Hezbollah with a carbomb IN Lebanon. So there had been back and forth aimed at military targets but Israel started attacking civilians.
al Jazeera doesn't agree with your assertion Solon. In fact they report that Hezbollah fired into Israeli sectors as early as last February:
[link to english.aljazeera.net]
Your citation does not back up your claim. It is about a skirmish starting with Islamic Jihad leader being killed and turning into a border skirmish between Israel and Hezbollah both aiming at their MILITARIES. NOTHING in that article says Hezbollah shot missiles at Israel CIVILIAN targets. There have actually been many border skirmishes between the two always limited to each others MILITARY targets. Most having to do with the Shaba farms area which is NOT Israel. My claim is that since the withdrawal of Israel from Southern Lebanon Hezbollah did NOT shoot any missiles at civilian targets IN ISRAEL
So no. Your citation doesnt come close to refuting this and my bet is that you wont find one that will.
I will say however that was a well reasoned argument, and a fairly good try.
and modern warfare tactics here is the strongest refutation of modern warfare the world has ever heard.
[link to www.americanrhetoric.com]
How would U.S. Troops in Iraq, or any nation for that matter, have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001?
Would the presence of U.S. Troops in Iraq have prevented the 9-11 hijackers from entering the U.S. with their saudi passports and "express visas"?
Would U.S. Troops in Iraq have prevented those hijackers from boarding those commercial airliners and commandeering them?
At present there is a voice in the public discourse on these matters, that wants to persuade the American People that it is the DOD that will protect them from the "terrorist attack".
How would the DOD have protected the American People on September 11, 2001?
How should the DOD have deployed U.S. Troops on that day, to even protect it's own self, the Pentagon, from being bombed by hijacked commercial airliners, let alone to protect the American People on board those planes, and in the WTC?
This voice that tries to persuade the American People that their safety and protection from the "terrorists attack" lies not in any law enforcement agency, but in the DOD...
...when that voice comes from the administration, and from the defense industries they represent, as business agents and lobbyists of a kind, then those counsels sound a little bit conflicted of interest, as though they would say to the American People:
"Spend billions of dollars our way, to defense industries by way of the DOD... that's the answer to the 'terror threat', billions and billions for the DOD."
...But as I asked above, how does that protect even one American Person from a "terror attack"?
It doesn't.
And the truth of the matter, that the American People's protection and safety from the "terror attack" lies with law enforcement (as who else was it that could have protected us on 9-11, other than the FBI, the Customs Service, the FAA even, the CIA by way of information, the Secret Service perhaps, and for that matter all the state and local law enforcement agencies that might be involved)...
...this truth is being obscured in the political discourse, by those who pitch for the billions in defense dollars... for defense contractors... for the DOD... although I ask again, how this would have saved anyone's life on 9-11, is no more clear to me, than how it protects anyone in the U.S. today.
So as to be sure I am understood correctly, I'd ask again:
How are U.S. Troops in Iraq preventing "terrorists" (w/ saudi passports and "express visas") from entering the U.S., and perhaps boarding commercial airliners or scheming some other type of attack on the American People?
It's not, that's how.
And this billions of dollars worth of arguments being made by the administration (and it's many hacks), is made near infuriating...
When that administration and it's many hacks claim that those who see the truth in these matters, and know that the American People's protection and defense from a "terror attack" lies domestically, within the U.S.'s borders (where else would you have successfully stopped the 9-11 hijackers?)...
When that administration claims we want to fight "terror" with indictments and the courts...
What an insult that is... what an ignorant (and billions of dollars worth of interests) way that is, to confuse the truth of the matter...
To confuse the Truth of the matter as to how the attacks of September 11, 2001 could have been prevented, and to how any "terror attack" today would be prevented.
That's all just admiration.
(1) Military Intelligence collected by the ABLE-DANGER team is shared with the FBI. This alerts the FBI to the presence of the 9-11 terrorists in the US and to their general intentions. This was directly prevented by Jamie Gorelick and the Clinton wall of separation policy. If the feckless middle manager Clinton era hold overs in the FBI who were supervising Agent Rowley in Menneapolis had gotten a search warrant to open the computer siezed from Zacharias Moussaoui in his arrest for an immigration violation. The FBI agents in the field.
(2) The military had been used against bin Laden and Al Qaeda directly after any of these bombings, which were all acts of war: Khobar towers, USS Cole, East African Embassies.
If you doubt the capability of our mlitary to do this, then I would suggest you have been ignoring events of the last 20 years.
Has been debunked about a dozen times on this very site look it up.
Aha, ha ha. Facts "debunked" on this site. Are you saying there is no Able Danger group that discovered links and dangers of the 9/11 plotters? If so, then you are sorely mistaken and should really go back to school and learn a little more on the subject. Reading only what is printed on these chat threads is simply misinformation and missleading.
Show it. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
The 9/11 commission admits they were a viable information data base concerning the attackers abilities and location.
Rep. Curt Weldon first admitted the existance of Able Danger (he was the vice chairman of the House Armed Services and House Homeland Security committees), Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer was one of its members. Both told of information that was given to the commision and how liberal lawyers from the ACLU blocked them from doing their jobs by claiming "persecution" against "people here legally". Thank you, ACLU, for helping the terrorists cause the 9/11 attacks.
So, not only does the government have full information about and from Able Danger, so does the aclu. If you don't believe the government, you certainly will believe the aclu.
Your rightwing talking points I understand that with your limited ability to understand the English language you fail to GET this. The people here are intelligent and know this has been debunked. The Gorelick memo was no impediment. I am weary of doing the research ripping nonsense like this to shreds having you wingnuts slink off then come back two weeks later and repeat the same old already debunked nonsense. Its not my fault your brain damage makes you unable to remember what happened last month. OK you are dumb as a post, we get that. Doesnt mean I have to become a poly sci teacher for the mentally handicapped.
However since today I feel in a charitable mood. And challenged individuals such as yourself need all the help you can get I will THIS TIME go into it again. As to Able Danger:
"The Sept. 11 panel said it did not find Phillpott's assertions credible because there were no documents to support them, and because Atta did not first travel to the United States until June 2000," at least four months after Phillpott claims that Able Danger identified Atta in Brooklyn, New York. As USA Today noted on August 26: "Shaffer says the team placed Atta in New York as early as February 2000, but The 9/11 Commission Report said he arrived in June of that year."
[link to mediamatters.org]
As to the Gorelick memo:
As Media Matters for America has noted, however, the 1995 memo and guidelines produced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Reno merely clarified longtime unwritten restrictions on the sharing of information between the FBI's intelligence arm and DOJ's criminal division. The 1995 documents had nothing to do with actions by the military or with the military's ability to share information with other intelligence agencies.
[link to mediamatters.org]
"A law enforcenment approach to Holy War has been ineffective. The Clinton Administration did little else beyond treating the Islamofascists as criminals. We see where that led... straight to 9-11." --NL207
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I disagree. It was responsible for capturing and convicting the original WTC bombers, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and several terrorists outside of the US before 9/11.
You provide nothing to counter that other than your own apparently dubious assertion.
a member of the WTC 1993 conspiracy.
Yousef was not taken until after the campaign in Afghanistan, when he was finally captured in Pakistan.
Law enforcement cannot function in foreign countries who are unfriendly or even in unfriendly areas of otherwise friendly foreign countries, as with bin Laden himself, who has at least for a time, been hiding in Pakistan where the Taliban are strong.
Law enforcement is useless against a guerilla army whose armed might is greater than that of the police. Consider the havoc wrought by Eric Rudolph, the Abortion Clinic Bomber. He was just one man operating with a few sympathizers. What would the police have done if that were 10,000 men, actively supported by at least 15% of the population, who were attacking the police, destroying their equipment, demolishing their stations and assassinating their chain of command? This is the actual situation in Iraq and not surprisingly, the police cannot handle it. An army is required.
The ultimate proof was the continued growth of the Jihadist problem all during the Clinton years and before, as Bush I and Reagan both treated this as a law enforcement problem. All the law enforcement efforts failed miserably to prevent this because law enfiorcement generally lacked jurisdiction or access to the locales where these persosn were organizing and arming themselves. 9-11 stands in mute testimony of the ultimate failure of the law enforcement strategy.
With the contention that to fight Islamic terrorism takes a military component. That cannot be ALL that is done. IF you think we will bomb our way out of this problem you are not facing reality
Not only was it reactionary in nature, but as posted above, Yoseff wasn't caught by law enforcement tactics, he was turned in by a snitch (thankfully) from within his own ranks. Rudolph was captured not by FBI agents or any federal agent for that matter. He evaded them for close to five years. It was a curious local cop who nabbed him dumpster diving in the Taco Bell trash bin.
The millenium plots were also busted by curious customs agents or snitches.
You (as well as NL207) seem to be confused as to what "Law Enforcement" is.
These people were all either turned into or captured by some form of law enforcement. Nothing either of you has said refutes my point in the least.
I do believe in a military component as well, but it is woefully insufficient to combat this problem with the military as the main arm. The military should be used mainly when reasonable diplomatic efforts fail.
This is a null word. Fascism is government by corporation; Mussolini started it when he removed officials elected by the people and put in representatives of corporations. "Islamofascist" is a buzzword invented by the Bush administration because everyone knows "fascisism" is dangerous and he is linking Islam to it as a scare tactic. Even using this word tips your hand; you've either already bought into their story or you're going along with something you know is false for reasons of your own.
Your statements about Wahabbist Islam are correct, to an extent, but you only hit part of the target. You also blame Clinton's policies for 9/11, but the fact is that Clinton reacted to terrorism decisively and Bush ignored it until 9/11. I didn't like Clinton and I find much of what he did to be morally repugnant, but blaming him for 9/11 is ludicrous. You also ignore the extremely close ties of the Bush family to the House of Saud, which would not be in power if it weren't for a revolution lead by Wahabbists.
Finally, Bush & Co. have actually played into Bin Ladin's hands; he even quoted Bin Ladin in a recent speech when he defined victory for the U.S. as dependent on what happens in Baghdad.
Who is the enemy? Answering this question also requires looking at who is benefitting from the conflict. Here's a hint: there is not a simple answer to this question, no matter what the leaders on either side may claim.
Christians killed innocent Muslims, Jews, Pagans and dissident Christians to take back lands taken from them centuries ago. Would you and Buchanan support a Native American effort to take back lands taken from them centuries ago?
And if scholars are still working this out centuries later as Madden claims, the picture they will eventually paint will most likely be distorted.
If the Crusades were a defense against Muslim expansion, it was a little late in coming. The Holy Land had been overrun by Muslims since about 650 A.D. Most of the western expansion had long been over by the time of the Abbasids ca. 750. The First Crusade was preached in 1095. That's kind of like us going to war today because we don't like the results of the Peace of Westphalia.
The First Crusade arose from a Muslim assault on the Eastern Roman Empire.
Try to see these evennts in an historical perspective. We are wrongly taught in school here in the west that the Roman Empire fell with the sack of Rome by the Vandals in 473 AD. This is a false notion since it ignores the actions of Emperor Constantine two centuries earlier.
Constantine for administrative and religious reasons divided the empire into two administrative units, the East and the West. He moved the capital of the empire first to Nicopolis, then Nicaea and finallly to Constantinople. When he did so, he also made the Eastern Emperor the senior emperor and committed rule in the west to Maxentius, his subordinate. We in the west today refer to this eastern empire as he 'Byzantine' empire. That is not what it called itself.
In the 1th century, The Eastern Roman Emperor, Alexis I, under assault from the Seljuk Turks [Moslems], appealed to the Western Emperor for aid. This came at a time when the West had recovered sufficiently from its own barbarian problem as to actually have the power to raise and send an Army. Pope Urban II is widely credited with motivating the Western princes to aid the East.
I'm not a fan of Wikipedia, but this history is found there as well as many other places. [link to en.wikipedia.org]
It is an important point to note that at that time, all these people thought they were living in the Roman Empire, which in name it still was. in the West, referred to as the Holy Roman Empire.
The point remains is that Crusades began as a response to Muslim aggression. Period.
It began because of a Turkish invasion of Anatolia, not a "moslem" invasion...just Seljuk Turks. To make it "moslem" lumps in all the other moslem peoples who were NOT involved in the taking of Anatolia from the Byzantines. The Turks themselves were being pushed forward by the Mongols, much as the Huns did to the Goths.
The Emperor made a deal with the Pope to trick a European army into retaking Nicaea for him, then made a deal with the Turks during the seige to hand the city over to him instead of the Crusaders. He then directed the Crusaders to the Levant, hoping they would die on the way. Many did.
It was the Crusaders who attacked the Arabs after fighting the Seljuks. There was nothing defensive about the Crusades after Nicaea, it was pure conquest by the Franks. The Crusaders behaved atrociously in the campaigns, butchering entire towns, men, women and children. The sack of Antioch, Jerusalem, and in the 4th Crusade, Constantinople itself. Many atrocities committed upon people of all three faiths by the Crusaders.
And I suppose it has never occurred to you to question how the Holy Lands and Egypt came to Muslim control from the Eastern Roman Empire prior to the Muslim assault on Asia Minor itself? This war against western civilization by Islam had been underway for centuries by the time of the Crusades.
Now you argue that because some of the Crusader armies did a little looting of their own, this constitutes proof there was never a defensive motive in the initiation of the Crusades. This is a non-sequitur. The opportunistic looting of the defenseless has nothing to do with the original casus belli. Armies throughout the ages have required restraint from looting. All this looting proves is that corruption and greed, if not universal, are at least pervasive.
Do you think there would have been any Crusades at all if there had not been some army of non-Christians assailing the Eastern Roman Empire?
If you want to study sacking and looting, I suggest you do not stop with the Crusaders, but go on and compare what they did with the Muslim sacking of Constantinople in 1543 at the end of the rule of the last Roman Emperor, Constantine XI. The acts of the Crusaders simply pale in comparison to that outrage.
You need to check your facts.
I will point out an obvious truth:
Constantinople and the Eastern Roman culture survived the Crusader looting. The Islamic attack of 1542-3 was another matter. The Eastern Roman Empire and its culture all but ceased to exist after that. Haiga Sophia was not only sacked but every Christian priest or monk that could be found was killed. Today it is a mosque., Constantinople is called Istanbul, and the vast majority of the people living in that region are ethnic Turks and not Greeks or Eastern Romans as was the case at the time of the Crusades. That is how completely Islam destroyed the Eastern Empire. Please show me where the Crusaders did anything of such magnitude.
The recent behavior of the Hamas Jihadists who took refuge in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is a good indication of what respect we can expect from these Jihadists. While cornered there by the IDF, who were unwilling to root them out by force for fear of defiling this church, the Jihadists found it convenient to use pages of the Bible for toilet paper. Yet apologists for these thugs tell us the Koran must be respected.
You can't differentiate a Turk from a "moslem"? They may be moslem but they are NOT Egyptians, Arabs, Persians, etc. The Turks sacked Constantinople, not "Islam". You're just proving that you seek any justification to wage CRUSADE upon all moslems.
By the way, I've used the Bible for toilet paper myself. It's all the Old Testament is good for.
The Seljuk Turks represent Islam because they were predominatly Muslim then Christians are attacking Iraq right now because the Americans are predominatly Christian. Your attempt to conflate EVERYTHING with Islam is inconsistant with logic
The Crusades were as defensive as the current fiasco in Iraq -- that is, only in someone's fevered imagination. One Crusade ended up sacking Constantinople -- what wonderful defense! Try a book intended to convey history rather than entertain the chickenhawks.
... just say, "It's DIFFERENT."
Then, you don't have to deal logically with examples and parallels which identify that neither side's hands are clean. If you admit that your side might be as guilty of offenses as the other side, then you might have to change your tactics.
Rightwingers are not about accepting responsibility or changing, they are about demonization and attack without apology. And rightwingers are about GOOD and EVIL, with them being self-identified as GOOD. No matter WHAT.
He's also written a book defiending the Inquisition. I think further review of his works may be in order; methinks he may have an agenda which involves Catholic apologetics.
Just a thought.
This excerpt oversimplifies the Crusades. It is arguable that they were fought in defense against expanding Islam--except that they were largely fought by Europeans in non-European areas. The primary motivation for the Crusades was economic, not defensive; even the historians of the Roman Catholic Church tend to admit this. And Europe was NOT taking Palestine back into European control, they attacked an area that was significant to them, but they were INVADERS.
All that being said, rehashing the Crusades is pointless; politics then was as complex as politics are now, and it's a side issue, really a diversionary tactic. We should NOT be focusing on them, but should examine what is going on NOW.
Perhaps we should just give Jerusalem back to the Jebusites - wherever or whomever they may be now!
Once again the argument is that Europe raised armies marched them to THEIR land and attacked THEM in defense. Please stop this sillyness only a moron could possibly buy such nonsense. It was a different time. There was aggression everywhere it was the way things were done. The Crusades were aggression. The Moor's invasion and occupation of Spain was aggression. The idea EITHER was defensive is sop for the weakminded that prefer propaganda to reality. Agression was what was going on. Most likely the Pope was looking for an overland route to India. A financial bonanaza in the day.
...marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before. Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe; Forward into battle see his banners go! Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Notice how Pat says, "To take back what WE lost!"
He's still fighting. Except, of course, he's a chickenhawk, and never fought anyone in his life, except the occasional police office who was arresting him for drunk and disorderly conduct.
Uh. Yeah. The best line of this one: HUFFINGTON: But you know, this is really a ludicrous conversation, frankly.
It is. How absolutely silly. Any Cons want to come on here and explain how this plus Pat's bit on immigration doesn't make it absolutely obvious that he's a white supremacist?
How can you even have this scumbag on your show? He sounded INSANE.
Besides - how many people were systematically wiped out by the "Christian" missionaries and conquistadors and colonists and so forth as Western Civilization went out and conquered lands on EVERY single continent save Antartica? Religions that establish a polarizing system of good and evil with the devout beeing good & others being are prone to people using them to justify violence, throughout history.
What a moron.
Just because Jesus was born there, and the Roman empire crumbled and became (well, half of the Roman empire) christian, how does that make the middle east christian land? Weren't the christian temples the last ones there?
why do you hate the baby Jesus and want to make him cry tears of blood?
You're displaying the kind of "question-asking" and "critical thinkyness" that makes Satan get all giddy as he starts to make up your room.
It doesn't make Republicans very happy, though.
I just wondered why Pat thinks it's "our" land because 2000 years ago Jesus was born there. The earth is older than that. It's at least 6,000 years old (so I'm told by certain "christian" groups)!
I'm getting tired of posting these "FACTS".
According to James Ussher (1581-1656), the earth was created on
The evening of Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC (Julian)
I'm not sure if they had daylight savings time back then, so it's pretty hard to tell the exact hour.
What do you buy for a 6,010 year old's birthday?
Maybe a better one is why should the middle east be Muslim land since it was Jewish and Christian long before Muhammed ever came along.
The Bible says part of it was God's gift to the Jews.
Did you know that it is a tenet of Muslim law that once any land is ruled by Islam, that land forever belongs to Islam?
Seems to me that most of Islam's arguments to claim lands is based on men with swords or guns.
If you accept the argument that the Middle East belongs to Islam by virtue of conquest, then so too, you must accept the argument that America belongs to Europeans who took it from the red man by force, fair and square.
Accept that America belong to those who are American right now. Agression back THEN was what was done. Agression NOW is another matter. Since WW2 things have changed. We no longer accept that this is how things are done. I have no problem that Rome took over the Levant back then. I DO have a problem that you are assigning the land to a specific RELIGION. The same people that WERE Shinto are now Baptist what does this have to do with Japan? People who WERE Animists are now Bhuddists what does that have to do with Tibet? There are people living in the middle East right now whose anscestery goes back to before Abraham who WERE worshippers of fertility Gods, then Jews, then Christians now Muslims. It means nothing to WHO has a right to claim the country.
Let me see if I get this straight....Islam (the religion of peace) was depicted in cartoons which starts a violent escapade that saw many killed and lots of structural damage. The Pope states that Islam should be more peaceful and that starts another round of violence and killing by more of the practitioners of peace. Yet, Christianity is being pictured as the bad guy for defending themselves over a thousand years ago. Is that what you all are doing? Tell me that you aren't defending Islam as the religion of peace while you are denouncing Christianity as the religion of violence. Because, if you are...well there's nothing that could be said about people who would do that other than you must be part of the "religion of peace" to begin with.
Tell me how a religion that claims to be "peaceful" turns ugly violent every time someone speaks out against them. Is that the true nature of the religion or just a group of fanatics that seem to be accepted by a large portion of the US as another "minority" that is "put down by the man".
Your black and white argument is crafted to say "not I". This is about saying ours is better than theirs by showing how their extremists are worse than our centrists. Apples to apples, dude. Our extremists are right in there...
Ok, let's compare the Christian "extremists". How many thousands have they killed in the last...say..10 years. Ok, make that 50 years. And, make sure you add in the factor that those being killed were killed because they wouldn't convert to Christianity. Now, compare that to the number killed by Islam for the reason of not converting to Islam. Apples to Apples.
Then let's compare the number of people killed because of cartoons depicting Jesus in a demenial manner in...say...the last 50 years to the number of people killed by Islam because of cartoons depicting Muhammed in a demenial manner in...say...the last 5 years. Apples to Apples. Just to keep it even, let's factor in the number of people killed by the Christian extremists when they had that "art" exhibit in NY that depicted Jesus in a vat of piss, a few years ago.
One more comparison. How many Christian extremists have put out "death edicts" on people who write/speak/teach that Christianity is a bad religion? How many "death edicts" have been pronounced on people doing the same to Islam?
Apples to Apples
[link to www.abcnews.go.com]
If you want I'm sure I could find more inflammatory statements from Jewish and Christian leaders, but I'd rather not.
I'm surprised you missed this statement by the liberal reporter doing a book on the movement:
"This is an enormous youth movement," said Lauren Sandler, a secular, liberal feminist from New York City who spent months among the believers researching her new book, "Righteous." Sandler says the evangelical youth movement will have a negative impact on the country's future, because even the most moderate young evangelicals are inflexible on issues such as abortion and gay marriage."
It's funny how she is scared of the movement because gay marriage and abortion is deemed as something that isn't Christian based, and that it will have a negative impact on the country's future because of it. But, I didn't see anyone learning how to strap on bombs and threatening to kill others who don't convert.
Coultergiest. I think we should invade their countries kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Savage. I am tired of hearing there are 1 billion Muslims in the world I think we should kill one hundred million of them.
Sure, you may explain it away as not 'really' being about Islam versus Christianity, but how do you think it looks to a Muslim on the ground that an invading Christian army , commanded by a President who called it a 'Crusade'--flattened a city the size of Cleveland?
The airwaves of whose country are filled with calls that 'Islam is an evil religion' (Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson)?
Oh, no, Christians aren't responsible for that, even though the President says that he was 'Guided by God,' and millions of devout Christians believe he has 'brought God into the White House."
No, this is not Christianity at war with Islam, killing their tens of thousands, even though the airwaves are full of "Clash of Civilizations!' and World War III!"
Oh no. those cartoon rioters are an awful wave af religious intolerance. But laying waste to thousands in Iraq? Oh no, that's nothing of the sort.
And that quote, "Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity"? That was a joke.
Right?
Ha ha ha.
OK, so I can't quickly come up with an example of a righty killing someone for not converting to Christianity (though Ann Coulter calls for it). No, our extremists don't kill for doing something that's possible. Our extremists kill you for not changing the color of your skin (KKK). Our extremists take you out into the country, beat you sensless and tie you up to a fence and leave you to die for being gay. Or drag you behind a truck. Or blow up federal buildings like Tim McVeigh. But gee, since they don't kill you for not converting to christianity, I guess that makes them better. Apples out.
No, I'm not saying better. And I certainly don't say Christians are perfect. However, there is a difference between Imam's teaching the slaughter of an unknown number of innocent people and Ann Coulter/Michael Savage calling for whatever they call for. And, sure you can give isolated incidents of Christians doing horrible things (you can even continue using McVeigh even though he said he was not a Christian) but being mentally deranged isn't the same as being taught to do what they do. I say that the teaching of Christianity does NOT call for the slaying of non-believers BECAUSE they don't believe. It is taught that they will die, just like the rest of us will. We are not taught to murder them.
You and many others, here, may think the war on terror is an "illegal/immoral" war but if you do, then you must think that the war with Japan was "illegal/immoral" too. We were attacked by Al Queda and now we are at war with them in Iraq and Afganistan. We fought Japan on a thousand different locations and who called THAT war "illegal/immoral"?
Gee, I guess that report that said we're fighting practically everyone BUT Al Queda was wrong...
And most muslims don't preach their religion as you prescribe to believe. What we have here is an example of a few doing it being made to look like all do it. You can find that here as well in variations. That's why we still see baptist churches in the south being burned down. Or catholics only considered christian when the evangelicals want to compare #'s of christians to #'s of muslims. Look up Pope and Satan on the internet, tell me how many hits are from religious web sites and then tell me how many of them are comparing the pope to satan.
As you said, the faith itself is not the issue, it's the preachers who spread the word. No one's clean on this one.
" What we have here is an example of a few doing it being made to look like all do it. You can find that here as well in variations. "
Yes, I agree with you on that point. However, give me an example where the Christian preacher is teaching his flock to murder un-convertable non-believers. How can you not see the difference between the two faiths? Recent example...the Pope has a speach where he is showing that Islam is violent and should change their ways. What does Islam do? They become violent, murder a nun and call for the death of the Pope. Now, (truthfully) what would happen if Christianity was reffered to in a speach as being violent and needed to change their ways? Would Christians call for the murder of the one making the speach and go on violent rampages murdering innocent victoms?
We are led to believe the entire muslim nations rose up in anger. That didn't happen though, only the extremists did. Did you see any muslims in america rise up in the type of rage you attribute the entire religion of? I can clearly see the difference, and what I see is a group of extremist preachers preying on the masses and goading a fraction of them into hard core hysteria. Just like the KKK does to this day. The only reason the KKK doesn't go on widespread killing sprees is because they know they are vulnerable in the open. But they sure do have their well stocked and armed compounds to retire to...
Which was written how long before the Quran?
Which is why at one time, practicing christians were burning witches (salem), executing heretics (Joan of Arc) or engaging in the inquisition! It's how the word is spread, not the actual content, that dictates actions.
as well as making out-of-context comparisons.
No persons were burned in the Salem witch trials. The old wives' tales to that effect are simply false. [link to www.salemwitchtrials.com]
The other events you mention were 16th century events and arguably not the work of practicing Christians but rather the works of political tyrants operating under the guise of religion. Joan was burned by the English as a result of her leadership role in conflict with the English. The Auto da fe was a political purge originally directed against the Muslim invaders in Spain but later hijacked by ambitious interests to do away with their political rivals as well, hardly a Christian enterprise.
Moreover, these events are 16th century. You are drawing moral equivalence between our society and these Islamic thugs based on a comparison between rennaisance western culture and contemporary Islam. This is equivalent to appraisng the suitablility of a candidate for employement based on their resumme of thirty years prior, an obviously invalid comparison.
Defective reasoning+defective data = defective conclusions.
"No persons were burned in the Salem witch trials. The old wives' tales to that effect are simply false. " --NL207
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does it even really make much difference whether they were crushed, hanged or burned? You are simply avoiding the fact that this was outright murder committed at that hands of Christian extremists.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The other events you mention were 16th century events and arguably not the work of practicing Christians but rather the works of political tyrants operating under the guise of religion." --NL207
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I will grant that is arguably true if you are willling to grant it may be arguably true that a similar situation exists for modern muslims.
Are you honestly grouping ALL Christians together and saying that the only people who have committed atrocities in the name of Christianity have been people using religion to justify themselves? Do you think that Fundamentalists who kill abortion doctors are acting in good faith, or are they tools of some poltical mastermind? Please keep in mind that the Catholic Church's Inquisition's name was changed to the Holy Office, then in 1965 they changed the name again to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The current Pope used to be the head of the Congregation -- the modern title for the Grand Inquisitor. He has openly said that only through the suppression of all dissent can the Catholic Church survive. Note: "dissent" is not limited solely to Catholics, though he doesn't claim aughority over non-Catholics. Is he a real Christian? Does this argument h0ld true for Muslims, too?
Have you actually studied history, or are you looking things up online as you post here?
Defective reasoning + defective data = defective conclusions.
I have been arguing all along that the muslim extremists are a)not the entire religion and b) the product of an extremist religious leader practicing in bad faith and finally c) which is something I've seen happen in other religions as well, including christianity. d) is it's not what in the text so much as how it's preached to the masses, hence why we can see that even christians have had segments fall to the gutters even as they think they are true believers.
We have supported Israeli war crimes against Arabs for the last thirty years. We have turned the Persian Gulf into a huge US military base in the last twenty-five. We have spent the last fifteen years killing Iraqis. We bomb their children and torture their young men while our leaders talk of "Islamofascism" and our preachers scream "kill them all for Jesus!"
And you blame Islam? The US and Israel attacked FIRST!
examples of political extremists and oppressors. Islam has no monopoly on these people although Saddam is singularly the best example of a Stalinist dictator that has lived in our time I can think of. Islam presently does seem to have a corner on are men willing to kill in the name of God.
This is what distinguishes the Islamofascists so sharply from the Nazis with whom they are otherwise very similar:
The Nazis were engaged in a eugenics campaign where the state decided your value and ultimately whether you should merely live, be allowed to procreate, or simply die, based on racial/ethnic origins. Their goal was to create a master race by the use of force. The property of the 'inferior' was forfeit to the state.
The Islamofascists on the otherhand use religious belief as the discriminator. If you believe as they do or can be coerced to say you do, you will be spared. Otherwise, they will employ deadly force to either enslave you in dhimmitude or kill you outright. In either of these latter 2 cases your property will be forfeit to the faithful.
Saddam was FAR from a Stalinist dictator. He was more a minor league thug by the time we invaded. In my lifetime I saw Suhuarto who killed more people in the first few months in power than Saddam did during his entire regime. At least 300,000 landless peasants. Pol Pot who killed probably one million people. Rios Montt who killed at least 50 thousand in the 18 months of his regime. During the time Saddam was committing his worst attrocities WE were strongly supporting him. You have your talking points down unfortunatly they dont pass muster.
Does that include Ann Coulter?
Show me a video tape on the web of Christian Extremists beheading a captive.
I've got several such videos for you of Muslim extremists doing just this.
Just in case you've forgotten. [link to www.homestead.com]
Christian extremists are just as bad as the Jihadists? Are you insane?
pictures of christian extremists hanging and burning blacks? Or dragging them behind their pickup trucks until dead (that happened here in texas a few years ago). Would you like to see a few pictures of mutilated homosexuals, done at the hands of christian extremists?
Last I checked, murder is murder. You just shudder more at the thought of getting your head chopped off.
" Or dragging them behind their pickup trucks until dead (that happened here in texas a few years ago). Would you like to see a few pictures of mutilated homosexuals, done at the hands of christian extremists? "
But, are they "Christian"? Do the people doing these crimes claim to be Christians and that they did it because the victoms would not convert? Or, is the criminal simply an evil person doing evil deeds? You know there are those kind of people out there, right? A lot of people don't believe in Christianity and perform all kinds of crimes then others blame Christianity for the crime simply because it is popular (among non-Christians) to make that claim. Are you 100% sure those doing the dragging of gays are Christian or just assume so because they killed gays?
If the criminals do make those claims then I stand corrected.
Is irrelevant. Whatever reason twisted people SAY they do things is not the point. The point is they did it because they were twisted. The BTK killer was a leader of his church. There are many factors that twist people. The study done on suicide bombings shows conclusively that they are NOT done for religious reasons. Did those who shot abortion Dr.'s do it BECAUSE of their religion? Those who bombed abortion clinics? Do these cases mean anything whatsoever about Christianity? The terrorism I cited on another thread done by Jews in the 40's was done in the NAME of Judaism because of their religious claim to the land that doesnt mean it was because of the religion. Blaming the message for the messenger is an age old logical fallacy. You are only updating it.
We're talking about Christian extremists, I don't know what YOU are talking about. In our arguement the fact that the person is a Christian is critical to whether the person is a Christian extremist. When you want to join in our conversation, you may want to actually read about what is being discussed. But, I like the way you came in during the middle of the discussion and tried to look smart. It adds color to the discussion.
When Muslims kill people in the name of their religion, they are called Islamic extremists. If they didn't do it in the name of their religion they would just be another average nutcase. Like we have so many of in the US.
It is reasonable. It may SEEM I was off no a tangent but I wasnt. I was coming at the argument from the other side. It isnt about twisted Christians its about twisted people. So to take YOUR tack, which I already addressed on another post, when Jewish terrorists were the most prevelant in the world Judaism was not blamed for their terrorism. The political component was seen as the motivation. When Christian extremists shot abortion doctors and bombed abortion clinics or when KKK avowed Christians were twisting Christianity for their disturbed, evil, purposes. Christianity itself was not blamed. David Koresh, Jim Jones, twisted people, Christianity was not blamed. This is why it isnt important that THESE people claimed to be Christians or not, because there ARE examples of people twisting other religions including Christianity and it NOT being blamed on the religion. Its about twisted people, what they are using to justify their evil and twisted agendas. Very committed disturbed people often will lean on religion, the religion of their region and twist it to comply with their own twisted self image. Whether or not in these instances they used religion instead of racial purity or superiority or some other insanity is not in THIS case the important point. They will misshape whatever strong motivation they have to conform, that is close at hand. It is the twisting and the individual not the motivation that is at fault. If you are going to blame Islam for Osama or the nuts who shot the nun then you need to blame Christianity for Jim Jones, the KKK, David Koresh and Judaism for Stern and the other Jewish terrorist groups. That is IF you want to be logically consistant. Trust me these guys HAD an excuse. Whatever it was it was just that an EXCUSE and thats what Islam is for the terrorists an EXCUSE.
" when KKK avowed Christians were twisting Christianity for their disturbed, evil, purposes. "
You know what happens to ex-KKK leaders when they retire? They become democratic senators from W. Virginia. Just goes to prove that SAYING you're a Christian is WAY different than BEING a Christian. The KKK is as far from being a Christian organization as catholicism is from being a muslim organization. Very bad example to use the KKK as an "arm" of Christianity. Do you even know what being a True Christian entales? Apparantly, not.
In recent times muslim extremists may appear more violent but Christian extremists have been just as evil. To claim otherwise is wishful thinking.
have been religions of peace and war at one time or another. Christians and muslims have done there fair share of killing and I don't hold either one in high regard.
Added to false premises. Either we are attacking Islam or we are saying Christianity is violent? How about PEOPLE are violent individually and neither religion is violent. When are you going to GET that the whole world isnt reducable to what goes into the black box and what goes into the white box?
...of why religion and politics should not hang out together.
I've known Muslims. None of them wanted to cut my Catholic head off.
Every religion has an underbelly as well as it's fanatics, abusers, charlatans, and hypocrites. People of all faiths need to realize that instead of slinging mud at one another or else we're just going to keep inching towards a real holy war.
Hey, if that's what all the Christian and Muslim extremists want, then fine. Let them go to some desolate area in the Middle East and fight to the finish. let them really have it out until they're all gone. Then perhaps maybe the rational, the tolerant, and the truely devout can go about their lives in peace.
you must stop them from breeding as they engage in this wholesale slaughter...
All the moslems I've met online were intelligent, humane people that were interesting to converse with. All the right-wingers and especially the Israelis I've had the misfortune to converse with were violent racist bigots who lied continuously and cheered on any attack on a moslem. And all of them wore their fundie Judaism and Christianity on their sleeves like a badge of honour.
The have the nerve to tell me it's the fault of Islam when I've listened to Israelis trying to tell me there is no such thing as a Palestinian (the KKK never even went so far as to deny the existence of "blacks") or US "christians" whining about gays, abortion and how we got to kill all the moslems to make America safe.
The Crusades are back, with all the evils that attended the first 12. The 13th created Israel, the 14th saw US troops invade Iraq. Fundie Judaism and Christianity imperializing on the Arabs merely for being "inferior" moslems. You can hear it in the anti-moslem rants of the righties in here.
Can't be the fault of US and Israel, we was just minding our own business, bombing Iraq and killing Palestinians, when these crazy moslems just up and attacked us, right?
"Tell me how a religion that claims to be "peaceful" turns ugly violent every time someone speaks out against them. Is that the true nature of the religion or just a group of fanatics..."
It's a group of fanatics. Again, it's mudslinging. Ratzinger throws a dart at Muslims, and they throw one back at Christians. Then one group of pundits puts Christianity on a pedestal while another group puts Islam on one as well.
It happens here a lot too. Mike Savage throws a dart at minorities, then someone throws one back at whites. Any group you can imagine applies.
Got news for all of ya. Most Christians aren't people with who condemn non-Christians and homosexuals with fake smiles on their faces. Most Muslims aren't wild-eyed, effigy-burning, saber-weilding fanatics who want to behead anyone who isn't a Muslim and blow stuff up.
It's all one big flamewar. Nobody's really winning and nothing's really changing for the better.
You have wisdom. But you have to admit it's funny to watch these arguements play out. I mean how else would I start my day without laughing as much as I do reading some of the posts on here.
It is funny... but then you realize just how dangerous the world has become and how important it is to deal with the situation rationally. You'd think extremists would eventually get tired... but nooooo.
I hear that Buchanan is designing new uniforms for our military. A cross will be prominently displayed on the front of all military garb... as well as on our shields, tanks, personnel carriers, etc. Bush likes the idea. ;>)
Bush is considering a new, ultra-elite special forces unit called the Knights Templar. ;>)
A piece of the "true cross" will also be sent into battle on special occasions. ;>)
who I usually can't stand, had a pretty good column about this today. Setting aside her usual Coulter-Lite cheap shots, she did a good job of explaining the context of the Pope's remarks, which is getting far less attention than that one little excerpt: [link to www.chicagotribune.com]
I have no love for Islam, Catholicism, or the Pope, but I think he's getting a little bit of a raw deal on this.
As for Buchanan, I'm very curious to know how he was going to complete this sentence: "There's no reason why we have to apologize for the Crusades, any more than they have to apologize for --"
For what, Pat?
Good article.
I don't really have a point to make on the soundbite, but I do want to say that this has to be one of the better discussions on the MM boards. It was really interesting seeing the points/counterpoints between Islam and Christianity without it devolving into idiotic insults because there is a difference of opinion (unlike the other topics on the site). Just my 2 cents.
A very genteel discussion, if you first ignore the blatant anti-Christian bigotry, sarcasm, and ridicule being bandied about by some of these ultra-tolerant 'progressives'.
Jesus preached TOLERANCE. He ENCOURAGED questions. He also was NEVER VIOLENT. I think He would have liked Ghandi more than any Pope in my lifetime (with the possible exception of Pope John Paul I) and most other "Christian" leaders. Pat Robertson? Falwell? Please.
There hasn't been anti-Christian bigotry here. Such a claim is not only specious but intellectually lazy. Arguments that against your point of view are not arguments against Christianity. Ditto for Anti-Americanism. Do you really think that those who disagree with you are definitionally wrong/Anti-American/Anti-Christian?
Oh come on Pat, couldn't you have said this another time. Anyway, there is probably some thread of racism in Pat Buchanan's comments, I wouldn't be surprised. This is how Pat sells books. He usually writes some book screaming about how the world is ending because of illegal immigration every two or three years, and makes a quick buck off of it. Might be a smart strategy to make money, perhaps.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
The same could easily be said of much of Christian history, notwithstanding the debate regarding the Crusades against the Holy Land. In fact, we see alot of violence (forced conversions, enslavement, ethnic cleansing, etc.) against non-Christians starting with Constantius II in the 4th century and continuing through the European colonial period. For examples of outright wars against non-Christians, consider the Northern Crusades of the 12th through 14 centuries.
When not fighting others, we Christians have also had some extremely violent conflicts amongst ourselves. Consider the Thirty Years War, which laid waste to much of Germany at a cost of about a third of the populace. Do you still care to argue that Christianity doesn't have a history as a "fighting faith?"