Dead Emperor Apologizes to Muslims for Quote

Perhaps, instead, the leaders of the 'Holy Roman Rempire' could apologize for their internecine civil war, which levelled much of Old Constantinople. You know, the Nika riots.

Of course, Constantinople was no stranger to the Crusader's fury, either - being pillaged and looted by a Christian crusader army in the 4th Crusade of 1198-1204.

I feel people who would justify the Pope's ill-conceived comments are a little out of their depth here.

The Crusades were defensive wars against Muslim aggression, Machinator. Who's out of their depth? Are you really trying to say that you're smarter than a man with advanced degrees in Catholic theology, who knows more about world history than you've forgotten? "Ill conceived" huh? Present your credentials, Machinator. Where did you go? Lublin? Tubingen? One of the "Pontificals"? Do tell.

The Pope quoted a man who said that Islam was spread by the sword. This is a fact; just last month two men were forced to convert on video, and at gunpoint, or die. The story has repeated itself daily for 1400 years.

The Emperor's quotation said that whatever was new in Islam was "evil". This is the standard description of all heresies, and the Emperor was basing his opinion on his firsthand experience with all those peace-loving Muslims in his midst.

I think you should do some research on your assertion that the Crusades were defensive wars, Kathy. I'm not sure where you picked that up - Sunday School perhaps?

Here, to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Defensive wars? Hardly. Do a little reading before you spout off your 'knowledge'.

Christianity WAS spread by the sword. Or did you not know? When the Spanish occupied the Yucatan Penninsula and then created Mexico - only those indigenous peoples which converted could be given jobs - and Christian names. The others were slaves.

The pope who instituted the fourth crusade did condem the attack on Constantinople. Regarding the attack Pope Innocent III said to the crusaders: "You vowed to liberate the Holy Land but you rashly turned away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians… The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs".

Did Islamic leaders ever level similar condemnation against Mehmed?

Here, about the 4th Crusade I was speaking of:

The fleet arrived at Constantinople in late June, 1203.

The Crusaders' initial motive was to restore Isaac II to the Byzantine throne so that they could receive the support that they were promised. Conon of Bethune delivered this message to the Lombard envoy who was sent by Alexius III Angelus, who had deposed his brother Isaac. The citizens of Constantinople were not concerned with the deposed emperor and his exiled son; usurpations were frequent in Byzantine affairs, and this time the throne had even remained in the same family. From the walls of the city they taunted the puzzled crusaders, who had been promised that Prince Alexius would be welcomed. The crusaders landed, attacked the northeastern corner of the city, and set a destructive fire, causing the citizens of Constantinople to turn against Alexius III, who then fled. Prince Alexius was elevated to the throne as Alexius IV along with his blind father Isaac.

I am sure that Muslim leaders all the time condemn acts of religious extremism. One should remember that there is no Supreme Pontiff in the Muslim faith - no Mullah to equal a pope.

So while 7 out of 10 mullahs may denounce a given act, who do you think gets press coverage? The incendiary radical ones.

Its disingenous to suggest that all Muslim thinkers are not loud enough in their condemnations. In fact, we are not listening.

I think the Christian world might considering apologizing to the Byzantine Empire, but, sadly, it's gone. Maybe when Mass is performed in St. Sophia, an apology might be timely.

St. Sophia, which, ironically, was preserved by the Muslims after the fall of Constantinople (now, of course, Istanbul). Converted to a Mosque, this is far more than the Crusaders would have done has a Muslim city fallen. They would have burned all the mosques to the ground and salted the ashes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia

"Are you really trying to say that you're smarter than a man with advanced degrees in Catholic theology, who knows more about world history than you've forgotten?"

And yes, I'll take the wager that I know a smidgen more about world history than the devil in Prada.

I am biased however: priests and religious 'thinkers' are a useless class of parasites in society. They always have been, and will remain so.

Machinator, you would presume to teach us all history, and you refer to Wikipedia? A non encyclopedia for non scholars, edited by any moonbat who comes down the pike. Go troll elsewhere.

Im not trolling, and your infantile ad hominem attack on me shows your inability to refute anything I have stated here.

Show me a better sourced, more up-to-date and better reference than Wikipedia and I'll gladly use it. Hell, GO TO YOU LOCAL LIBRARY and pick up a book. You might learn something.

Wikipedia is the only web source worth noting nowadays. Before you disparage it, remember that it is used as source material ALL THE TIME. Not just be me, but thanks for trying.

What I would love to see is you pull all your indignation and what passes for critical thinking in that vacuous head of yours and refute me, genius.

Besides, as much as you might wish it were so, none of the facts I have stated are controversial. All are generally accepted as fact.

Perhaps you should presume to teach yourself history, padawan.

My opinions, well, they're another story.

Finally, canadians are learning history. Too bad they didn't learn it in school. And, like the Bible, it will be misinterpreted.

No, machinator, wikipedia is not the ultimate source of truth - about anything. It's a populist source that can be edited and re-edited, and is not subject to a review of scholars in the field. It's very good as a basic non-specialist source, and just because it's used 'all the time' is irrelevant. It isn't reliable enough for the specialist.

To understand the crusades, you need to go to specialist texts, and need to understand not merely the individuals, but above all, the economic, demographic, political and legal infrastructure of the time. I don't think you are dealing with those issues and that means that your opinions are superificial.

Now, Benedict's speech was, in my opinion, brilliant. He was challenging the Islamic world, which has clearly rejected Reason (capital R) in its definition of values, for its promotion of violence which is, as Benedict points out, an 'unreasonable act'.

After all, life is to be lived, not terminated, and yet, the Islamic view of Others is tribal, ie, Others are viewed as outsiders to be subjugaged or killed

You are ignoring the reality of Islamic fascism, which is a perverted tribalism. You state that '7 out of 10 mullahs' denounce a terrorist act. WOuld you provide your data base?

The reality is, that terrorism exists; you can't ignore not merely 9/11, but the bombings in London, Madrid, Indonesia, Germany, etc. You can't ignore that these attacks are carried out, in the name of their religion.

Never mind the simplistic statement that 'not all Muslims are terrorists'. The important data base is that 99.999% of terrorists ARE Muslim. And that hatred and violence IS preached in the mosques, on their webs, in their schools.

These can't be ignored, despite your seeming to want to do so.

Benedict was challenging the Muslims about their violence. And what kind of response did he get? Violence!

And that marvellous illogical statement of 'Anyone who describes Islam, as a religion, as intolerant, encourages violence'. That's incredible, as I'm sure you can also see.

So now, Islamic leaders are meeting with Benedict; can they convince him that Islam's ideology is not based around violence and a cult of death? Have you read the Koran? It promotes death over life. Very interesting.

I suggest you move beyond wikipedia and explore the economic and demographic nature of the period, both then - and above all - now. That might help explain the rise, now, of Islamic fascism.

The point is, buffoon, kind of difficult for me to quote a traditional source that no-one here will have access to. If I reference a long list of books, my points would still be ignored because they do not fit your worldview - that Islam is evil, that we are engaged in some gigantic battle of civilzations.

These are fallacious views, but I support your right to them.

I highly doubt you have read Gibbon's Decline and Fall. I have. It includes a rather lengthly section on the Byzantine empire. To state I am somehow ill-informed when you have, as far as I can see, nothing to offer except sycophantically reciting from a list of atrocities, is the height of arrogance.

Are you attempting to restate the OP's point that the Crusades were wars of defense? They were not, as I pointed out, and no amount of rhetoric will change that. The Crusades were a very low point in the history of Christianity. To say otherwise is revisionist.

They very term 'Islamic facism' is inane. Islam demonstrates none of the key attributes which we would define facism. On the other hand, the current US administration meets a good 80% of the criteria.

The fact is religious bigotry drove some lunatics to horrible atrocities. The same is true of Christians - only because they are not seen as somehow 'foreign' they are less useful as boogeymen. You essentially imply that on 9/11, those people were doing Islam's work. I think most Muslims would disagree. It would be the same as saying that the Waco standoff loonies were doing Christianity's work.

Is that so difficult to understand?

I'm not sure why "Machinator" chose such a nickname for himself, but he certainly does seem to be some sort of machine, one which is only programmed with a limited set of responses, hence the monotonous repetitions of his tiny stock of notions about matters he obviously knows very little about.

It would be gilding the lily to mention his complete lack of a sense of satire.

Oh Andrea, please oh please try to take issue with something I say, as opposed to my existence. I know you're not used to having your idiocy questioned, but please, try to maintain some composure.

What, pray tell, do I know very little about? Please, point out where I have made a fallacious or incorrect statement.

I am certain that you are so erudite as to not require explaining to lesser beings - however, indulge me this once. Otherwise I am forced to assume you are speaking out your ass.

Ad hominem should be saved for the schoolyard - if you disagree with something I say, try articulating why. I know its hard.

First, machinator, don't move into ad hominem. Don't call me or anyone 'names'. Stick to the issues.

No, your lack of reliable references can't be blamed on your assertion that no-one here will access them. You can't make such an uninformed claim.

So what if I have read/not read Gibbon? You don't know what I've read. And his outline of the Byzantine is not the type of analysis I'm talking about; as you know, his work was strongly criticized for its biased nature. I'm suggesting you need an economic and demographic analysis of the Crusade era (not a part of Gibbon's analysis) and importantly, an economic and demographic analysis of the current Middle East states.

Could you please clarify why my 'list of atrocities' is 'sycophantic'? That's quite a conclusion; how do you derive it?

No, I wasn't talking about the Crusades as 'wars of defence', for that would be a reductionist analysis - ignoring the demographic, economic and political infrastructure of the European and ME states of the time. I'm sure you are aware, of course, that the Islamic states were an imperialist force at the time.

No, you are quite wrong. The current US has no attributes of fascism.

I'm betting you are relying on a biased and completely invalid definition of fascism that I've read somewhere, that tries to claim that the US is fascist! Nonsense. Try to get your facts straight.

I suggest you read the famous/infamous two page outline of fascism by Mussolini/Gentile. And, there's Eatwell's outline of Fascist History.

Essentially, fascism is a utopian ideology, that locates its Essence, its Purity of Form, in a mythic past or mythic Essential Nature. It rejects Reason (as pointed out by Benedict) and is highly emotional and uses propaganda and a vicious denigration of Other People.

It is nationalistic, focused around an ideological and ethnic purity of a nation, which is involved in Struggle with Others (that's the war-nature). The fascist nation exists in this 'struggle' for power, but it is an ideological and political power.

Fascism is not influenced by any economic motive; it therefore rejects communism with its class economic war; it rejects capitalism, with its notion of individualism and profit. The US economy is based around the individual, which promotes capitalism and profit and innovation.

Fascism rejects the individual; it is focused on the heroism and purity of the group; therefore, it rejects democracy - which is an ideology of freedom of the individual. Of course, the USA is based around privileging the individual, on freedom, and rejects privileging of the group.

The basis of fascism is the notion of the Nation, or State - which is understood as an Absolute Truth. You don't critique it, much as you don't critique Islam which is understood as an Absolute Truth.

Therefore, the current ideology of Islam, is indeed fascist. I suggest you read valid references, not garbage, on fascism and its history.

No, your reduction of terrorism to 'a few lunatics' and your attempt to equate it with singular incidents at, eg, Waco, is naive.

The many bombings, beheadings, murders of people, by Muslims, all over the world, which number in the many thousands, can't be ignored and they can't all be defined as carried out by psychologically disturbed 'lunatics'. There is more involved than an individual who is psychotic. Kindly note the hate-filled preachings of the many imams around the world. Note the training camps of Al Qaeda, which are hardly 'some lunatics'; note the books and web sites they have devoted to hate and calls for murder; note the many people killed. Why are you ignoring this?

What is also disturbing is how many 'regular Muslims' don't speak out, loud and clear, and denounce these acts. Why not? They are afraid, as Tarek Fatah was, who recently stepped down as head of a Canadian Muslim organization, because other Muslims threatened him if he became too 'conciliatory'.

I don't agree with your perspective; I think your data base is superificial and shallow, and your conclusions are invalid. OK?

a quick history lesson:

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=836

5. The Fourth Crusade is one of the most maligned of the Crusades. This is the Crusade you have studied in depth. Could you comment on some of the myths about the Fourth Crusade?

The biggest myth is that the Crusade was purposely diverted from its original goal – either by Pope Innocent III or Doge Enrico Dandolo – in order to conquer Constantinople. In fact, on several occasions the pope forbade the crusaders to go to Constantinople and once they were there, forbade them to attack the city. It is also not true that the Crusaders were led to Constantinople by a hatred of the Greeks or an envy of their empire. Instead, they came to Constantinople at the invitation of a Greek claimant to the throne, who promised to help them on their Crusade. The Crusaders only attacked Constantinople after their Greek friend double-crossed them, refusing to pay their reward or to join the Crusade. Even then, they only initiated hostilities when the Greeks murdered their former friend and ordered the Crusaders to leave immediately without reward, support, or even food. The Fourth Crusade is a tragedy, but it is one in which the Greeks and Latins both played important parts.

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/western_civilization/madden_interview.htm

"I highly doubt you have read Gibbon's Decline and Fall. I have. It includes a rather lengthly section on the Byzantine empire"

And Gibbon was notorious for hating Christianity and blaming it for the fall of Rome, amongst other things. Which other historians from antiquity have you read? Peter Brown? Owen Chadwick? How about Thomas F. Madden?

You've read Gibbon. Hooray. Now show you're more than a one trick pony machinator and show us you actually know some history.

Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world. While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it. More than he wanted, in fact.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-madden110201.shtml

Troll alert: Machinator.

I notice Machinator's blog links to the Huffington Post. 'Nuff said.

Troll for Rosie. Clintonista. Ignore.

Kathy, I LOVE the graphic. I laughed out loud!

I can almost hear the radical Islamists, in their rage, howling back through the ages for Manuel II Paleologos to "Take it back!"

Ill tell you what, ET. Next time I see a comment posted to a blog - or an article, that sources as follows:

(34) Byzantium, The Empire of New Rome (pp 34-78)
-Cyril Mango

I'll let you know. As far as I'm aware, people do not do that because it is a waste of time. Never did I claim Wikipedia as the 'source of all truth' - of course you were unable to resist the accusation. Merely I used it to point out that the original author of this article was flat-out wrong when she said 'the Crusades were wars of defense'.

Facism is defined by several key components, which are glaringly absent from your wordy analysis. Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

They key, as you know, is the suppression of individual rights for the rights of the State. You need not be racist to be facist. Islam is not a nation - in fact, like Christianity it is divided by several 'schisms' - Wahhabists, Sunnis, Shiites and other, less numerous, sects. How then you can attibute characteristics of facism to these groups - united only by belief - is beyond me.

Gibbon was only decried as biased by the Church, which held near-absolute sway over biblical research archives - and still does. Many did not like his revelations of all the false saints and martyrs - and the idolatry of the current church as it would have been seen by the Old Church.

So, you essentially argue I should ignore all the hate-filled websites of Southern Baptists and clinic bombers, that those fundamentalists are not of concern - only the Muslim fundamentalists are. Note the training camps of militant racists in the wilds of Montana, waiting for the days they seize government in the Unites States. Are these less a worry?

I never, you might note, argued that Muslim fundamentalism is not dangerous. I have stated that inordinate amounts of attention are being paid to a relatively tiny problem. Meanwhile, we have lots of domestic problems.

Further, I took specific issue with the Pope's comments - now I have no respect for any priest, as a rule, except perhaps on an individual level based on their actions - for being so incendiary at a time where we need LESS religious hysteria, not more. He acts as though Christianity has a wonderful track record, when in fact it should be an embarassment to all right-thinking peoples.

"Gibbon was only decried as biased by the Church"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

"So, you essentially argue I should ignore all the hate-filled websites of Southern Baptists and clinic bombers, that those fundamentalists are not of concern - only the Muslim fundamentalists are."

Rosie O'Donnel, call your office.

Say g'night, Rosie.

"held near-absolute sway over biblical research archives - and still does."

Stop it. My stomach hurts. I can't take the laughter. You're killing me.

Machinator

Did you also get the term 'Ad homonym' from Wiki as well? Wikipedia has long ago been discredited as a reliable source of information. The fact that you did not or do not know this speaks volumes about your arguments. Which I might add appears to be cut & pasted verbatim on multiple blogs.

I can just imagine your Friday night scene, your mom calling down to you from upstairs 'C'mon honey, bedtime.....time for your Jamy-jams".

Vlad -

'The biggest myth is that the Crusade was purposely diverted from its original goal – either by Pope Innocent III or Doge Enrico Dandolo – in order to conquer Constantinople.'

I never attributed the decision to attack Constantinople to the Pope. The problem was, the claimant prince guaranteed supplies and support from the citizens of Constantinople - the troops expected to be paid and fed. When they arrived under the walls of Constantinople - surprise! - the citizens did not want their king deposed.

It is true that there was an intention to go on to the Holy Land - but only after resupplying in Constantinople. The soldiers became angry - and the decision was made, probably out of greed, to attack the city. They despoiled all the religious sanctuaries and helped perpetuate a schism that persists to this day. And now, children, you know why there is a Greek Orthodox Church, separate from the Vatican. (Yes, it is a little more complicated than that, but this is the essence)

One must remember that the people the Crusaders raped and murdered were Christian. It helps to put the Crusades in focus - as wars of rapine and ambition, not necessity.

"Note the training camps of militant racists in the wilds of Montana, waiting for the days they seize government in the Unites States. Are these less a worry?"

If I were you, I'd be worried about the ones who have ties to radical Islamists.

Yet I don't see you refuting me. Just making an ass of yourself. People who speak loudest often have the least to say.

"People who speak loudest often have the least to say."

If you'd bothered to follow the link to Thomas F. Madden's plethora of books, you'd find out you've been refuted many times over.

Have fun with your Gibbons. Gotta go now. You're way too much of an intellectual powerhouse for all of us on this blog.

We acquiesce in front of your font of magnificence.

Missing Link - Please, show me an example of where my writing has been cut and pasted from 'multiple blogs'.

I hate pussy-ass accusations from limp-wristed followers. No context, no specificities, simply a general slander from an anonymous coward.

Go crawl back into whatever hole you dragged yourself from.

Yes, really - you've been refuted, and its all in this magic book I have! Perhaps if you had even read the books you want to cite you would have a better chance of using them to refute me. Sadly, you allude that a refutation exists, but you were too dumb to write it and too forgetful to remember it.

But it's in there! Honest!

Oh Dear! Thank you ET for responding to the Machinator's challenge. I am sure that your lucid, throrough and penetrating response is more than he/she can handle.

Come on HotShot, take ET's argument apart if you can. Point by point if you please. Give it a whirl. Lets see if your counterpoints are reasoned and bear some relation to the issues ET put forward.

My bet is that you will not be back to take ET on.

"No context, no specificities, simply a general slander from an anonymous coward."

Oh, one more thing before I go run some infidels up my spikes 20 ft in the air, when you find that secret vault where the Christians keep the Biblical Researchers all locked up, do let us know will ya?

Say hi to mom, and give Ariana a big hug.

Right, and go get back to sucking Bush's cock, Vlad.

Ahem, O Machinator, how is the US Facist again?
Why is ET's list of atrocities''sycophantic'?

As a start.

Christianity Today has a good round-up of the reaction to Pope Benedict XVI's speech at
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/138/41.0.html

Does anybody find islam's reaction to the Pope's remarks just a wee bit ironic?

The Pope discusses a 14th century Byzantine emperor's thoughts on islam's spreading itself at the point of a sword, and islamists protest this link between violence and their religion by:

- murdering a nun who works in a children's hospital after their Somali religious leader calls on muslims to "hunt down the pope"

- attacking a half-dozen churches in the West Bank

- condemning the Pope to death (radical british imam)

Despite machinator's self-righteous history lessons and his claims to the contrary, I've seen plenty of islamic outrage at the Pope's remarks, but - oddly enough - very little at the general islamowhacko reaction to the remarks.

Just as the "reasonable muslim world" was strangely quiet during the danish cartoon issue.

Or at muslims taking umbrage to British public office calendars of Miss Piggie, or at coffee mugs containing porcine caricatures. Or at rioting and death tolls after a beauty pagent in an islamic country.

As for a "tiny problem", machinator, check out the islamist body count at thereligionofpeace(d0t)org. And ironically, islamofascists have no problems with killing those of their own faith that don't agree to their fundamentalist whacko bent.

"Note the training camps of militant racists in the wilds of Montana, waiting for the days they seize government in the Unites States. Are these less a worry?"

Yes. Yes they are less a worry.

I should ignore all the hate-filled websites of Southern Baptists and clinic bombers, that those fundamentalists are not of concern - only the Muslim fundamentalists are.

Those Southern Baptists are at it again, eh? Scores - hundreds! - of clinics bombed, thousands of pro-choicers immolated... oops! Sorry. That didn't happen.

But once the Baptists start flying abortion clinics into buildings, then we'll soon deal with that.

To equate this lot with radical islam suggests you'd be better served shelving your Gibbons, and doing a bit of boning up on current events, friend.

mhb23re
(email is above username at google webmail service)

This country bumkin suspects that Pope Benedict the scholar may simply have rusty political street smarts.

Here*s a picture you could fill out or correct. No name calling though. I already admitted to country bumkin.

Today’s simplified world picture.

Two world powers are moving toward a showdown of force rather than negotiation.

North America on one side, Iran and Pakistan on the other.

Iran has been seething ever since the Shaw of Iran debacle. Ahmadinejad is feeling very confident with Putin, Chavez, Musharrif and China on side.

Mahoud leads a group of clerics who have wealth, power and influence ambitions, that are beyond any normal religious goals. The ambitions of this small group of power mongers endangers the lives of 160 million Pakistanis and untold numbers of Iranians and Israelis.

In the same sense, Bush leads a team of power mongers who want to preserve a more civil and free democratic way of life. The ambitions of this small group of leader - controllers is to protect and maintain long time hard won advantages.

Without diplomacy and negotiation, these hard fixed positions endanger the lives of 450 million North Americans.

On both sides, the people at risk of injury and death are the citizens. That is you and I.

Amazing, isn*t it, that due to media spin and propaganda the citizens of Lebanon feel at one with Nasrallah and Hezbollah when in fact Iran is lashing out at Israel on the backs of Lebanon citizenry and at the expense of their lives. When Hezbollah walks about peeling off money to victims, most seem unaware of how they are being used.

Are we, the citizens of North America, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, et all about to be used soon?

Hope negotiation and reason win out, but if not, the air could become dangerous to breath.

= TG

Machinator, Islam has itself caught in a bind. It needs reform, no doubt about it. I was convinced of that when the first plane went into the North Tower.

Now how is reform to take place unless one is first critical of Islam? Can only muslims be critial of Islam? Is a sentence critical of Islam acceptable only if a muslim utters it, but the same sentence unacceptable if spoken by an infidel? If not, then what does that say about Reasoning within Islam?

Let's assume that the message can be received independently of the messenger. If that is the case, is criticism the same as 'an insult'? It does not appear to take very much to insult Islam these days. If the same level of sensitivity was experienced within the average marriage, we'd be extinct in a single generation.

Criticism of Islam is demonstrated as unacceptable. Very blunt, and very clear signs of this are regularly trotted out at Friday seethapaloozas all around the world: "behead those who insult Islam".

Those messages do not exactly foster an environment of reflection, reasoning, self-dialog and reform. These messages intimidate, and silence, both without Islam, and within.

Islam is trapped by this extremism. To rescue this religion, congregations will have to reject and eject imams that keep the lid on criticism. I have not heard of single case of that happening. Anywhere.

The horse is out of the barn. The signs being displayed by Islam which are brutal, blunt and to the point have been read, and understood. The occasional decapitation in places like Iraq and Afghanistan tend to lend these messages an aura of sincerity. I get it already. Many of us do. We're gobsmacked wondering what part of the message on those signs our lefties don't understand.

The moderates had better act, and act fast, because the extremists have just about won a complete public relations victory.

machinator, your claim that 'wikipedia is the only source worth noting nowadays' is analagous to a claim that it is The source of all truth.
You made the claim of its dominance in truth-seeking.

Again, might I remind you not to move into ad hominem.

A dictionary definition of an ideology is too shallow to use as a reliable model of actual history.

The way that you can attribute fascism to an ideology unconnected to a nation is to understand the infrastructure of fascism. Again, a dictionary definition won't provide you with that.

The requirement for a Nation, with 'Nation' understood not in a geographic sense which is incorrect, but as an essential, organic or a priori Will To Act of a homogenic collective, is one definitive factor of fascism. Islamism supplies that factor.

Then, since it defines this a priori mythic Essence or Will as supreme, the individual disappears. Fascism rejects individualism and is focused on that homogeneic collective, which is viewed as striving for Purity. Islamism's focus on an authoritarian and rigid control of people wihtin one mode of behaviour and belief supplies that factor.

Fascism's Will is expressed through struggle. That's Islamism's basic mode of action.

Then, fascism is not an economic ideology but an emotional ideology. Islamism is not interested in the economy; its focus is not on life but on death. So, fascism and Islamism don't deal with capital, capitalism, or class.

With the rejection of individualism, fascism and Islamism reject dissent. No criticism is allowed; the Islamic Koran is viewed as the direct word of god and no interpretation is allowed. That also means that, with the rejection of individual thought, science is dead within an Islamic society.

Now - that's only a brief account. How on earth could you conclude that the USA, the domain of democracy, individualism, dissent and dialogue, and science - is a fascist nation??????? Hmmm?

Yes, the christian fundamentalists are less of a worry. They don't go around bombing planes, trains, restaurants; they don't go around beheading schoolgirls for going to school; they don't mount wars in burgeoning democracies because they reject freedom of the individual and democracy; they don't murder people who refuse to convert to their religion. They can't be compared with Islamic fascism.

Have you actually read the text of Benedict's speech? Do you know what he meant by the rejection of Reason in Islamic ideology and in postmodernism? Could you explain why you object to his analysis? Could you also explain your claim that he acts as though Christianity has a wonderful track record? How does he make that claim?

Could you explain why you consider Islamic fascism, which is murdering hundreds of thousands, that's right, hundreds of thousands, in attacks in Africa, in Indonesia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan - and in Europe - could you explain why you consider this just a 'tiny problem'?
Do you agree with its rejection of democracy and the rights of individuals? Do you agree with its enforcement of a Taliban society? Is that a 'tiny problem'?

Again, you haven't explained why you define the US as fascist; you haven't answered my 'sycophant' question.

I fully agree with you that the Crusades were atrocities. I'm not going to get into the causality of the Crusades, for I insist on an economic and demographic analysis, which requires statistics of food supplies, population growth, etc - and I think this thread isn't into that.

But, it is invalid to use the crusades as a justification for current Islamic violence. Every peoples, all over the world, have been involved in wars and to suggest that we operate only by constantly reacting to 'what you did to my forefathers 500 years ago' is to reduce human beings to reactive machines.

Benedict's speech was brilliant; it wasn't about the Crusades; it was about the lack of Reason in Islamic ideology and in leftist postmodernism. It was a red flag flung down for Islamists, to force them to deal with this violence. What was the reaction to an accusation of violence within their ideology? Violence! He knew exactly what he was doing; now, he's getting them to start talking and thinking about it. Incredible.

Machinator has been reduced to "Right, and go get back to sucking Bush's cock, Vlad."

'Very revealing. When boiled down to its essence, this is what's left of Machinator's argument(s) and tells us volumes about his basic intention in coming onto this blog.

CLOMP, CLOMP, CLOMP: Is that the sound of Machinator stomping away to his lair under yonder bridge?

Loved the cartoon.

"Wikipedia is the only web source worth noting nowadays."

/hearty laugh of derision for the fool/

A columnist in Chicago who couldn't refute me used wikipedia as a source about a year ago.

He probably whipped over there and typed something up before he ref'd it.

Why stop at wiki? What's wrong with the nat enquirer or your next door neighbour? Same cred.

Man, the trolls are coming out in farce this week all over the 'sphere. Guess it's because school's back in....

I plove it when the irrtrievably clueless cite the conquistadors as proof of Christianity's violence.

Cortés and pals grew up in a society infused with 7 centuries of islamic backwardness.

Cortés imbibed it.

The Spanish conquests, thanks to all that Arabo/Muslim influence, employed both the tone and techniques of jihad.

Christianity WAS NOT spread by the sword. My anscestors freely embraced it, as did the Russians, the Ethiopians, the Irish, the Goans of India, the Greeks, the Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Scandinavians etc, etc, etc.

Now if only Islam could make the same claim.

And the crusades WERE wars of defense. Muslims, in a totally unprovoked agression, decided to deny Christians access to their holy sites.

They cast the first stone and ended up getting thier asses kicked.

The fourth crusade, the one in which Constantinople was sacked, rather than proving just how violent Christains were, demonstrates instead just how shit poor the islamic world was at the time.

By the early 13th century Islam had exhausted all the capital, wealth and resources that had been carefully accumulated by the aboriginals of the Near East, the Christians.

The pork barrel was empty!

The whole region had, in fact, become one big Gaza strip, a filthy, stinking dustbowl inhabited by the human misery that only Islam, and Islam alone, "knows" how to create!

It took the "religion" of peace only a few generations to turn what had been for millenia the wealthiest and most literate areas of the globe into an irrelevant, useless backwater.

From Fertile Crescent to "Futile Crescent"

And there it remains to this day.

Did the Muslims accept his apology? What was their mode of communication either way?
Suffice to say Islam has created some of the worst cesspools of humanity in the history of Humankind.The civilized, modern democracies are having to deal with the fallout, fighting terrorism in places like Afghanistan.
Poor wretched souls,including children, being driven to suicide bomb innocents in the name of Islam.
We have to do whatever it takes to end their reign of terror.
Too much of Islam is stuck back in the era of the Crusades. They may be cruising for some tough lessons.
Strange banter to be having in the 21st century!

Of the banter above, this seems to ring true.

Islam is trapped by this extremism. To rescue this religion, congregations will have to reject and eject imams that keep the lid on criticism. I have not heard of single case of that happening. Anywhere.

The horse is out of the barn. The signs being displayed by Islam which are brutal, blunt and to the point have been read, and understood. The occasional decapitation in places like Iraq and Afghanistan tend to lend these messages an aura of sincerity. I get it already. Many of us do. We're gobsmacked wondering what part of the message on those signs our lefties don't understand.

The moderates had better act, and act fast, because the extremists have just about won a complete public relations victory.

Posted by: Shaken

Shaken, I agree, and it will be a challenge as the Persian Shia have Russia, Pakistan, China and about 16 ME nations on side this time. = TG