giddyup, others have done a good enough job on the merits, and let me say that this thing you posted isn't quite as transparently awful as some of those silly e-mails you've posted. However, the fact remains that it the musings of some extreme right wing conspiracy nut (this guy is one of those types who thinks the republicans are part of such conspiracy) with a rather unsteady grasp on history. If you want to read something that offers insight on the subject that is marginally similar but is an actual piece of scholarship rather than a survivialist rant, I suggest you read "The Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel Huntington. This stuff is just crap, and not really worthy of comment.
A) More Europeans have been killed by terrorists than Americans, so it's a tad arrogant to declaim it as an exclusively American enterprise. B) Giddy...sorry, but you're arguing in circles here. Either the history matters, as this man proclaims, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Yes, the Crusades had nothing to do with America, directly, but then neither did the Ottomans, or the Battle of Tours, etc. etc. EIther they have relevance to the present, or they don't. C) It's not a few errors, it's an onvious pattern of selective judgment, which is contrary to the idea of detemining something on an historical basis. His primary contention; that this is an ongoing war dating back to the 8th century is in and of itself a leap; it is not self-evident; and none of the exmples he uses to build his argument apply, or prove the point he's tryng to make. It's like saying that Rickey Henderson was actually the greatest power hitter of all time, and trying to prove it by pointing out that he lead the 1981 A's in homers ( he didn;t, but for argument's sake). Yeah, nice argument, if you conveninetly overlook Ruth, Aaron, etc. Giddy, I could make an argument that the invasion of Iraq is another Crusade, and probably make it with more support than this piece. There is nothing in common between the Caliphate/Islamic movement between the 7th and 15th centuries and today's terrorist conflict other than something of a religious commonality, although there are plenty of people in Ireland, for example, who would argue with that. The Ruth example assumes a self-evidence, or at least an ability to prove a primary assertion that just doesn't in any way relate to this article.
How come every paranoid screed starts out with saying you need to pass this on to your friends and relatives? Crikey these are like chain mail for the fearful and conspiracy minded. I think others have done a good job of addressing the half-truths, inconsistencies and plain falsities of this piece so I won't weigh in too much on that. But I can't resist one. The piece that it was justified to invade Iraq because Saddam was in league with the terrorists by giving money to the suicide bombers while having some truth skirts totally over the fact that our biggest allies in that region the Saudis and Gulf States were also giving money to the suicide bombers. Heck they were giving money to Al Qaeda. So why not invade them since they're bigger patrons of Global terror than Saddam ever was. That said what is most alarming about this is that changing the tone slightly and this thing reads just like one of Osama Bin Ladin's rants. What y'all who believe in stuff like this don't realize is that you are playing into OBL hands. He wants us to wage a devestating apocalyptic war against Islam because that is his path to power. He's crazy enough to want to have a genocidal war of cultures but by far most Muslims don't unless we become stupid enough to buy into that crazy clash of civilizations. The scary thing is that we just might.
Originally posted by MacBeth A) More Europeans have been killed by terrorists than Americans, so it's a tad arrogant to declaim it as an exclusively American enterprise. <b>Well, then, where are the Europeans in this War on Terror? Don't blame me if the Europeans prefer to continue to be victimized by the Terrorists...</b> B) Giddy...sorry, but you're arguing in circles here. Either the history matters, as this man proclaims, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Yes, the Crusades had nothing to do with America, directly, but then neither did the Ottomans, or the Battle of Tours, etc. etc. EIther they have relevance to the present, or they don't. <b>The enemies have changed; now it is our time. I don't really mean to diminish the errors-- I wish he had gotten all his facts straight, but neither do I think you can dismiss him out of hand (as some of you have chosen to do) because of detailitis. The sweep of events is what is important here. There are probably scholars who disagree on some of the details.</b> C) It's not a few errors, it's an onvious pattern of selective judgment, which is contrary to the idea of detemining something on an historical basis. His primary contention; that this is an ongoing war dating back to the 8th century is in and of itself a leap; it is not self-evident; and none of the exmples he uses to build his argument apply, or prove the point he's tryng to make. It's like saying that Rickey Henderson was actually the greatest power hitter of all time, and trying to prove it by pointing out that he lead the 1981 A's in homers ( he didn;t, but for argument's sake). Yeah, nice argument, if you conveninetly overlook Ruth, Aaron, etc. <b>No, it is not self-evident. That is why he is promoting the notion. I take exception to your conclusion that none of his examples help to build his argument...</b> Giddy, I could make an argument that the invasion of Iraq is another Crusade, and probably make it with more support than this piece. There is nothing in common between the Caliphate/Islamic movement between the 7th and 15th centuries and today's terrorist conflict other than something of a religious commonality, although there are plenty of people in Ireland, for example, who would argue with that. The Ruth example assumes a self-evidence, or at least an ability to prove a primary assertion that just doesn't in any way relate to this article. <b>Wouldn't we have started by first killing our own Muslims in America. Bin Laden killed way more on 9/11 than we did. The point of my Ruth example was that erroneous details don't disprove the point but they do detract from it.</b>
Who says that this is a war against mainstream Islam? Certainly GWB or the US has said or done nothing to indicate that.
It's just the current, modern incarnation of the struggle. Al Quaeda at the point for radical Muslims and the US at the point for their enemy.
Is that a non-comment comment akin to non-denial denials? My source on this one is better. He is a member of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Take heart....
They're in Afghanistan...remember? Just because the United States, contrary to all known facts, decides that Iraq is a key point in the war on terror doesn't make that fact, nor does it mean that all people who genuinely oppose terrorism have to jump to our call. This is extreme arrogance. Yes, you can dismiss it out of hand. His entire premise depends on an historical context of his own invention. Without that, it's just one man shouting religious bigotry and making odd connections where none would seem to exist. The United Stes is Christian...the Crusaders were christian...gasp...does that mean this is a Crusade? Well, sure, because ( if you overlook the American Revolution) the Americans have always fought alongside Europe, and this is just a continuation, etc. etc. See how easy/silly it is? You can take exception if you want, but that doesn't alter reality. Well, if this were a continuation of the Jihads of the 7th and 8th century, wouldn't they have started by continuing the path they took, ie through Spain into France? If you want to make absurd hypotheticals to refute the ( absurd) claim that this is a Crusade, you're missing the point. Short of any substance, which this piece simply doesn't have, this is just a weird theory that plays well to people who don't know enough history to question it, but want to agree with it. It's pretty bigotted to be honest. BTW...at last count the death toll of Iraqi civilians in Iraq is around 11, 000. Erroneous details do disprove a theory if it is a progressive construct; once you get to a faulty platform, the argument cannot continue as valid. Suppose my theory is that the recent outburt of homerun hitters is just a continuation fo the increase in home run hitting with every generation? It would be a nice theory, however it would require me to overlook much of the late 60's and almost all of the 70's, and well into the early 80's. Now, when confronted, can I say; gee, that's just one blip on the screen, doesn't help my argument, but doesn't make it invalid, or do I concede that my theory is unsound? There are several unaccounted for dead ball eras in this Jihad theory...
Giddy, did you read the speech by General Zinni? Do you have any comment at all about what he said regarding Bush's decision to invade Iraq and his plans, or lack of plans, for the occupation? The silence from your side has been pretty deafening. (on another note... I think you and I have a lot in common in regards to Mr. Master Baiter's opinions on "aging".)
Originally posted by MacBeth They're in Afghanistan...remember? Just because the United States, contrary to all known facts, decides that Iraq is a key point in the war on terror doesn't make that fact, nor does it mean that all people who genuinely oppose terrorism have to jump to our call. This is extreme arrogance. <b>Neither do we have to see it their way, nor do they have to see it our way. The American characterization of European non-participation has been much more inclusive than has the European characterization of American participation.</b> Yes, you can dismiss it out of hand. His entire premise depends on an historical context of his own invention. Without that, it's just one man shouting religious bigotry and making odd connections where none would seem to exist. The United Stes is Christian...the Crusaders were christian...gasp...does that mean this is a Crusade? Well, sure, because ( if you overlook the American Revolution) the Americans have always fought alongside Europe, and this is just a continuation, etc. etc. See how easy/silly it is? <b>The US is christian? We have Judeo/Christian traditiions but this country has lots of Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Wiccans et al. His entire premise is that there have historically been significant Muslim numbers and leaders from the Middle East who have wished to squash Christendom. While that may have been true in reverse in the past (i.e. The Crusades), it is clearly not true here and now. Muslims resides happily and safely in the good ole USA. </b> You can take exception if you want, but that doesn't alter reality. <b>MacBeth's Reality.</b> Well, if this were a continuation of the Jihads of the 7th and 8th century, wouldn't they have started by continuing the path they took, ie through Spain into France? If you want to make absurd hypotheticals to refute the ( absurd) claim that this is a Crusade, you're missing the point. Short of any substance, which this piece simply doesn't have, this is just a weird theory that plays well to people who don't know enough history to question it, but want to agree with it. It's pretty bigotted to be honest. <b>It could be a continuation of the Jihad in spirit not geography, no? What is absurd? The (your) claim that this is a Crusade all over again or the (my) refutation of that? If this were a Crusade, why are there so many Muslims alive in the US? Simple question; give me a straight answer. I don't like some of the generalizations of the piece, but I see nothing wrong with the threading together across centuries of Muslim aggression against Westerners. Wouldn't you agree that there is more clearly a pattern of that than of Westerners tyrannizing Muslims? Have the Crusades ever been repeated?</b> BTW...at last count the death toll of Iraqi civilians in Iraq is around 11, 000. <b>I knew you would do this! I was referring to the killing of American Muslims. There is no Crusade ongoing, okay?</b> Erroneous details do disprove a theory if it is a progressive construct; once you get to a faulty platform, the argument cannot continue as valid. Suppose my theory is that the recent outburt of homerun hitters is just a continuation fo the increase in home run hitting with every generation? It would be a nice theory, however it would require me to overlook much of the late 60's and almost all of the 70's, and well into the early 80's. Now, when confronted, can I say; gee, that's just one blip on the screen, doesn't help my argument, but doesn't make it invalid, or do I concede that my theory is unsound? There are several unaccounted for dead ball eras in this Jihad theory... <b>Yes, there are. That doesn't mean however that there is not a recurring movement within Islam to destroy Christendom. Is there a significant movement within Christianity to destroy Islam?</b>
I haven't. I've been busy for a couple of days and spent today offline ... until this evening. I'll try and get around to it.
OK..... No, but the soul Void of word and my body weighed down Succumb in the end to midday's proud silence: No more, I must sleep, forgetting the outrage, On the thirsty sand lying, and as I delight Open my mouth to wine's potent star! Adieu, both! I shall see the shade you became.
