Modern Times IS Ancient History
By haystack Posted in Featured Stories | History — Comments (44) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
While no history expert, I can find (quickly enough) the historical records necessary to support the notion that this so-called civil war in Iraq is anything BUT our creation, and anything BUT limited to the borders of that once great nation.
To be fair, the removal of Saddam DID create an environment that has allowed the opposing sides to take off their gloves and have at it for the umpteen thousandth time. So too did his removal embolden the opposing sides from the nations that surround her and create an environment they all appear to consider ripe for re-establishing the latest of the many Caliphates they seem wont to live within. To suggest, however, that having chosen NOT to take him out would have left the world a safer place is just patently absurd.
Read on . . .
Though a begrudging supporter of this Commander in Chief through his darkest days of non-Conservatism, as a loyal supporter of our troops once they are put in harm's way I have only one choice and that is to stick with this man through thick or thin because of the treasure he has decided it is in our collective best interest to commit to a cause.
Having said that, and reflecting on the relentless pounding he has had to endure as he tries to keep us safe at home while moving the world forward into the 21st century (a job description fitting enough for the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet), it is not difficult to understand what Bush 43 is trying to do, and it is even LESS difficult to see how little of the world's troubles are actually BECAUSE of his actions.
The idea that the West would have sufficient power to be the sole impetus of a civil war between Sunni and Shia in the middle east is merely wishful thinking on the part of the anti-war movement, and serves no valuable purpose in the debate over what the West should actually DO about it.
A little time trying to understand the make-up of these Islamic sects will quickly lead to a clear understanding that this struggle has been underway since the death of Muhammad himself. Such an effort would further serve to remind us that ours (the United States) is but a hiccup in the ebb and flow of this battle between ideologies; we are merely the latest inspiration.
To believe that a country, an infant by comparison, could elicit such displays of passion and angst by its mere existence is to buy-in to the self-deprecation mantra of modern liberalism hook line and sinker. While the West represents a Christian-lite approach (for the most part) to life and governance, and as our methods for dealing with our fellow citizens continues unabated toward freedom and liberty at all costs including unborn children and those who find themselves cast aside and underprivileged, Islam and its two basic divisions continues to struggle for dominance and supremacy between themselves and the unbelieving world around them.
As Wikipedia will tell you, a Caliphate:
is an Islamic federal government which represents political leadership and unity of the Muslim world (Ummah) applying Islamic law (Shariah).
The Caliphate is the only form of government fully sanctioned in early Islamic theology. The Caliph is the term for the head of state. Caliphs were often also referred to as Amīr al-Mu'minīn "Commander of the Faithful", Imam al-Ummah, Imam al-Mu'minīn, or more colloquially, leader of the Muslims, the land where the Caliphate existed was referred to as Dar al-Islam even if the majority of inhabitants were not Muslims, and the lands which did not implement Islamic law (Shariah) under the Caliphate were referred to as Dar al-Kufr. The first Caliphate's capital was in Medina, after the Islamic Prophet Muhammad's death. At times in Muslim history, there have been rival claimant caliphs in different parts of the Muslim world, and divisions between the Shi'a and Sunni parts. In past Caliphates, each member state (Sultanate, Wilayah, or Emirate) of the Caliphate had its own governor (Sultan, Wali or Emir).
On many occasions I have been summarily beaten back whenever I try to suggest that there is a move underway to bring back the Caliphate in some modern reincarnation of the "good ole days". I am routinely told the idea is folly. I suggest, yet again in light of the latest Sunni uprising in the Horn of Africa (or more specifically, in Somalia), that this effort is making outstanding progress.
Let's recap, shall we?
According to Wiki, Abu Bakr was the first Caliph, and is accepted by the Sunnis as the rightful successor to Muhammad, though the Shia's apparently consider Bakr's reign as having been "taken" after having orchestrated a coup d'etat. He would sit on high for two long years.
Umar ibn al-Khattāb would follow Abu Bakr in AD 634, and would hold on to power for a scant 10 years. Next up, Uthmān ibn ‘Affān - believed by Shias to be the REAL first Caliph, would rule a whopping twelve years, and would through his death hand the baton over to Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib who would rule for a grand total of five years, and was:
revered by Sunni Muslims as the last of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs and as a foremost religious authority on the Qur'an and Islamic jurisprudence. Shi'a Muslims consider him the First Imam appointed by the Prophet Muhammad and the first rightful caliph. Ali was the cousin of Muhammad, and after marriage to Fatima Zahra, he also became Muhammad's son-in-law.
If my math is right, Muhammad is dead a full 29 years and his legacy sees four Caliphs come and go. Not exactly what Muhammad had in mind, I am quite sure.
Post Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, there would arise the Umayyads (7th-8th century), the Abbasids (8th-13th century), the Shadow Caliphate (13th century), the Ottomans (15th-20th century), and a brief stint with the Khilafat Movement (1920) during which an attempt "to defend the Ottoman Caliphate, spread throughout the British colonial territories in Asia. It was particularly strong in British India, where it was a rallying point for Muslim communities led by Maulana Muhammad Ali Jouhar."
This passage, also from Wiki, is worth attaching here for debate's sake:
On March 3, 1924, the first President of the Turkish Republic and its leader, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, along [with] Atatürk's reforms, constitutionally abolished the institution of the Caliphate. Its powers within Turkey were transferred to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (parliament) of the newly formed Turkish Republic and the title has since been inactive. Though very unlikely, the Turkish Republic still retains the right to reinstate the Caliphate, if it ever chooses to do so.
Scattered attempts to revive the Caliphate elsewhere in the Muslim World were made in the years immediately following its abandonment by Turkey, but none were successful. Hussein bin Ali, a former Ottoman governor of the Hejaz who aided the British during World War I and revolted against Istanbul, declared himself Caliph two days after Turkey relinquished the title. But his claim was largely ignored, and he was soon ousted and driven out of Arabia by the Saudis, a rival clan that would have no interest in the Caliphate. The last Ottoman Sultan Mehmed VI made a similar attempt to re-establish himself as Caliph in the Hejaz after leaving Turkey, but he was also unsuccessful. A summit was convened at Cairo in 1926 to discuss the revival of the Caliphate, but most Muslim countries did not participate and no action was taken to implement the summit's resolutions.
Though the title Ameer al-Mumineen was adopted by the King of Morocco and Mullah Mohammed Omar, former head of the now-defunct Taliban regime of Afghanistan, neither claimed any legal standing or authority over Muslims outside the borders of their respective countries. The closest thing to a Caliphate in existence today is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an international organization with limited influence founded in 1969 consisting of the governments of most Muslim-majority countries.
It is important to note the players and parlays in this because it tells us more than a little about the dynamics of the Arabs and their struggle for identity in the modern world. To be sure, a Caliphate is exactly what they already have, (though not one with a clear central leadership mechanism) and such a thing can not be declared lest those who would declare it might find themselves challenged beyond their resources to justify and defend it.
Tepid but peaceful coexistence serves all the "clans" of the modern Caliphate well enough, or so it SHOULD, given the flow of money the evil "West" continues to provide unabated and with a quenchless thirst one would be otherwise tickled pink to enjoy.
Among these players are all manner and form of Muslim, but like in the 6th century, they are still down to two sides; Sunni and Shia.
Consider the demographics of the middle east and the Horn of Africa.
In the ME, we find Saudi Arabia with about 27 million people, who's primary religious perspective is Salafi or Wahhabi ("an uncorrupted bygone religious community that declined due to foreign innovations (bid‘ah). They seek an Islamic revival through the purging of these influences and the emulation of the early generations. Particular emphasis is given to monotheism (tawhid), condemning many traditional practices as polytheism (shirk), and encouraging struggle (jihad) of varying degrees. The sources of Salafism are said to be the Qur'an and the sunnah.") [emphasis haystack]
Yemen, with a population of around 21 million people, enjoys a relative split between Sunni (55%) and Shia (42%). Then there's Oman...population 2.6 million who enjoys a religion distinctly separate from Sunni and Shia (Ibādiyya-founded less than 50 years after Muhammad passed over to the other side), and is rounded out by the Sunnis (who take up the bulk of the balance of the people there).
United Arab Emirates, population 4.5 million, enjoys a diverse religious demographic, citing Hindu and Asian religions as being every bit as tolerated as their Muslim faithful. A poster child for a better Middle East? Perhaps.
Qatar, with under a million people are almost exclusively Wahhabi (more popularly referred to in modern times as Salafi). And Kuwait, at 3.1 million people, enjoys a majority Sunni population (although approximately 15% are said to be Shia) and govern themselves according to Sharia law as well.
Before we go west to the Horn, consider our buds in Iran. Population 70 million, 90% of whom are Shia. And our other pals, Syria? Population 19 million, 75% of whom are Sunni. And, lest we forget Jordan, where there is a population of about 5.5 million, 90% of which are Sunni and 2% Shia.
Iraq, of course, is just a mess...right? Sunni here, Shia there...more Shia in numbers, more Sunnis doing the killing. But I digress.
First stop on the Horn is Egypt. With a population of approximately 79 million (90% of whom are Sunni), we know the Muslim Brotherhood calls Egypt home, and it is clear from a brief google that these guys have every intention of getting back to the basics once envisioned by Muhammad himself.
Moving south to Sudan, with a population of perhaps 37 million by 2006 United Nations estimates, we find a country which is majority Sunni and has been systematically killing her own people by the hundreds of thousands in regions such as Darfur in the name of ethnic cleansing, genocide, or whatever OTHER name you would like to place on the removal of any and all who do not assume the religious intentions of the ruling thugs in the government there.
Eritrea, at 4.4 million people, basks in the warm peaceful glow of a near 50-50 split between Christians and Muslims, defers almost completely on the Muslim side to the Sunni sect. Somalia, at 8.3 million poor and suffering people, have taken up with the Sunni persuasion as well, by and large, and find themselves at odds with Ethiopia of late.
Remember, Ethiopia has a population of about 75 million people, and is the first in this long dreary list of countries whose majority religion is NOT Muslim. Remember, too, the recent news of Ethiopia "declaring war" on Somalia, and the inference from the LA Times that this war would fare no better than the one running in Iraq as we speak. [ahem...these guys said much the same when Israel defended herself against Lebanese incursions under the flag of Hizbollah...but we don't like to talk about that out loud in public...shhh!]
Dont let the Egyptian's veiled threat against Ethiopia and their implied taking of sides with the Sunnis in Somalia go unnoticed. And don't let the United Nation's rapid taking of sides with the Somalis go unnoticed either.
It is quite clear that there is some non-quantifiable sympathy for the Muslim world and angst against any who would fight against it, and an analysis of the Religious persuasion of the majority of the membership of the UN and the fiscal resources they collectively bring to bear on international policy, will quickly point to a few real good suspicions.
I find the editorializing of ideological confrontations rather boorish these days. Little intellectual energy seems available to ponder the greater meanings of these types of clashes; the dream of peace and stability and the desire to be left alone to feed and clothe and enrich your populations versus the desire to beat and subjugate (through torture and suicide and beheadings if necessary) any among you who might choose to espouse a religious pursuit that differs from the ones holding the AK-47's.
While the rest of the world has long gotten over the deaths of Jesus and Muhammad, and have focused inwards on their borders and their peoples with but a handful of exceptions where some would dabble in other peoples' affairs looking to make a fast buck at someone else's expense, these people are playing for much higher stakes.
Islam, and not just the Radical elements among them, is playing for their religious convictions and the teachings of their prophet; they are playing for keeps. They are looking to expand their religion and their ideologies, and are (or have been to date) much more willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in endeavoring to stake their claims on the lives of the unbelievers (read you and me) than WE have been for the last 1,500 years.
There is little difficulty in understanding what that means. There is, for some unfathomable reason, MUCH difficulty in making people open their eyes and look up from their self-serving pursuits long enough to notice how close to home this "jihad" is being brought to bear upon us all.
The world may not be coming to some great end tomorrow or the next day, but over a billion people are out there right now understanding and devoutly believing that the other 5 billion of us need to be made to see their light, and that light has been shining since ancient times.
Islam should be afforded an equal and respected place on the Religious stage along with all the many other belief mechanisms the human race finds solace in. When the line between tolerance and acceptance of diverse opinions is crossed, those of us who might disagree must be given every bit as much acceptance and tolerance.
The Sunni and Shia conflict will likely never go away. To force the rest of us to take sides may, in fact, be the greatest shortfall of the Bush Administration's response to the so-called war on terror.
Simultaneously, the strategy of showing a willingness to shoot back has at least brought the cockroaches into the light where they can more easily be exterminated and swept away from those who might otherwise seek tepid peaceful coexistence with their non-Muslim brothers and sisters.
We, each of us, owe it to our subsequent generations to continue to stand up in resistance to their methods of conversion through destruction.
This lesson is just as well LEARNED by us as it is TAUGHT by us, but we must continue to endeavor to do both.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Defining The Minimum Wage — Comments (11) »
Modern Times IS Ancient History 44 Comments (0 topical, 44 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
for which the invasion and democratization of Iraq is a test.
It is not an adequate test, unfortunately, because of the interference of Iran, Syria, the U.N., and our own MSM. While they do not march in lock step together, they are all on the side of the trench which seeks to end, or at least radically redefine, Western civilization.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Is that a surprise? Did anyone actually think that Iraq's neighbours would just mind their own bussiness? Anyone with even a basic background on the balance of power in the mideast could have told you that Iraq would become a center for the Sunni-Shiite rivarly in the region.
In any case, as far as the record goes there probably aren't any Muslim countries which have been transformed from Dictatorships to Democracies through invasion by a foreign power.
I had an ancestor with Jan III Sobieski when he smashed the Turks outside Vienna. His crest is a cherished family possession. Are you saying the Poles didn't have the will to fight? Or the Greeks when they threw off the Turks? Or the Serbians? Or the Bulgarians? Or the Russians when they smashed one Muslim army after another?
He was overbroad when he said 1,500. He should have left it at 400. (And with the sense of his words, he should have said 2,000.) Sobieski's descendants -- including the ones posting on internet boards -- show a curious lack of wish to go squishing Christianity's historic enemy in the teeth, whether to alleviate a siege, to conquer, or to reconquer. Indeed, the Greeks appear wholly unconcerned with the present spread of Islam, the Russians only care about it when it means some province wants independence, the Bulgarians appear wholly unconcerned about the plight of Christians anywhere, and those backstabbing Brits may be the only ones in the whole bunch who are trying to do something about it, rightly or wrongly.
Now, about the rest of your post. I agree with most of it. But, then comes the disconnect in my mind. What has Bush possibly done to prepare us for this conflict between the Caliphate revivalist forces and the West? If you follow the work of Paul Cella, he has done a great job of pointing out the many ways in which the current Bush policy of praising Islam (and separating it from the 'radicals') is actually highly counterproductive.
There is doubtless something to that. You ready for a good, old-fashioned Crusade? Because frankly, that's the only other real option on the table. Talking Crusade without doing Crusade is, let's be frank, going to produce an even bigger disconnect (if I may use the term) than what we're doing right now.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
It wasn't the Russians or the Greeks that bombed a Christian nation into submission on behalf of Muslims in the late 90's. That was the United States.
The Serbs are willing to fight, and we all see how that was rewarded, don't we? The Slavs will fight if led. The Poles of today are just as brave as they ever were. You do remember that Poles stood up to the Soviet Union in the 1980's? Do you think that they have suddenly become cowards?
Of course not. In my family in Poland and among many Eastern Europeans with whom I am friends, there is a deep seated anger. They want to stop the Muslim tide into Europe. They want to prevent a Dhimmi future for their children. They want real leadership. They look to the United States for that leadership, but they aren't getting it. They also aren't getting it from the French, or the Germans, or the Brits.
Are not the Brits (despite being in Iraq) at the forefront of converting their own nation to Dhimmi status? Blair is a multi-culturalist of the first order. The American Right has forgiven this, since he has committed troops to Iraq, but those of us who spend months each year in Europe understand it quite well.
There is a growing nationalist movement in almost every European nation. They are labeled 'NAZIs' by the American media, and much of American officialdom says the same thing about them. The pro-Catholic party in Poland has been subjected to so much slander that I could never catalog it all.
I'd be thrilled to have a president with half the guts of His Holiness the Pope. I mean thrilled.
It wasn't the Russians or the Greeks that bombed a Christian nation into submission on behalf of Muslims in the late 90's. That was the United States.
Utterly true. By the way, where's the hard Russian push against Iran? That Greek army marching on Constantinople?
The Serbs are willing to fight, and we all see how that was rewarded, don't we?
You engage in what is, at best, wishful thinking. Are they willing to fight for land or for faith? For history or for the Pancreator?
The Slavs will fight if led. The Poles of today are just as brave as they ever were. You do remember that Poles stood up to the Soviet Union in the 1980's? Do you think that they have suddenly become cowards?
In order:
(1) You infer from small subset examples that the whole will react similarly. This is a logical fallacy. You further suggest, with relatively little modern data, that the motivation for this behavior is religious, not secular.
(2) Of all the nations of Europe, I give Poland a pass. The manner in which we've treated the Poles, these last seventy years, is nothing short of atrocious; the way they've stood against tyranny of every kind is nothing short of breathtaking. With that said, you're not really showing me much of anything that says that the Poles will march to reconquer, to conquer, or even fight in the name of Faith, which incidentally, is what we're talking about.
Are not the Brits (despite being in Iraq) at the forefront of converting their own nation to Dhimmi status?
No. It just seems that way because we get a lot of English-language press online. The Spaniards are at the forefront.
Blair is a multi-culturalist of the first order. The American Right has forgiven this, since he has committed troops to Iraq, but those of us who spend months each year in Europe understand it quite well.
Yes he is; you once again engage in erroneous conflation -- "overlook" is not the same as "forgive"; and I hope you're not suggesting that the Scandinavian countries, the low countries, the Germans, the Italians, the Spaniards, and far too many others to count are doing the multiculturalism/dhimmi thing merely because Tony Blair thinks it good policy.
There is a growing nationalist movement in almost every European nation. They are labeled 'NAZIs' by the American media, and much of American officialdom says the same thing about them.
Now, now. You and I may disagree about a great deal, but up until this, I've never thought your intellectual honesty in doubt. Many, many of those parties are fascists, or worse. Not all; many. Undoubtedly, the remainder are smeared so by their own press and ours, not to mention government officials of every stripe; but no one ever thought bureaucrats or politicians smart or wise. But let's be frank here.
The pro-Catholic party in Poland has been subjected to so much slander that I could never catalog it all.
This is the fate of all pro-Catholic parties in Europe. You know, that great place that will march to war to battle Islam?
I'd be thrilled to have a president with half the guts of His Holiness the Pope. I mean thrilled.
So would I. I'd also like a German premier, a French President, a British Prime Minister, and dozens of other elected leaders with similar moxy. Ain't happening.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
It makes me wretch.
Utterly true. By the way, where's the hard Russian push against Iran? That Greek army marching on Constantinople?
Russia is doing business with Iran, that is true. Of course, we do robust business with the Saudis, even while elements of that regime back insurgents who kill our soldiers in Iraq. Not to mention the alliance we've made with Pakistan, and overlooked its nasty and ongoing connections to the Taliban. Such is life. I'd prefer the Russians to be on board against Iran, but I take comfort in the following words of the Patriarch of Moscow. You see, the Muslims and some Jews in Russia objected to classes on Christian Orthodoxy.
The Russian Orthodox Church supports introduction of the fundamentals of the Orthodox Culture. Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II says introduction of these lessons is advisable because school children should be given education in religion. He also emphasized the lessons are important as Orthodoxy is Russia's major religion. The Patriarch also says that followers of Islam, Buddhism or Judaism may study their cultures as well. "Every civilized man must know the history of his culture. The whole of Russia's history is based upon Orthodox traditions and moral principles," Alexy II says. Generations to come must know Russian historical figures such as Daniil of Moscow, Dmitry Donskoy and Ivan Kalita, he adds.
Read more here: http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=8640&sec=43&con=42
Doesn't seem remarkably multi-cultural or defeatist, does it? Elsewhere I've seen, now that four provinces require the classes, that Alexy has basically said to Muslims, "Get over it."
I'm afraid Orthodoxy is back in Russia, and the outlook for close cooperation with Islam is not promising long-term.
You engage in what is, at best, wishful thinking. Are they willing to fight for land or for faith? For history or for the Pancreator?
Most of the estimates I've seen place the number of practicing Orthodox in Serbia at around 78%. If you spent time among Serbians, then you would understand that they fought for both the Pantocreator and the land. These two are not in conflict. The basic tone on this board is that Europeans are simply, as a mass, willing to roll over for the Muslims. The Serbians were not, and are not. The Macedonians aren't either. These are tough people who fought long, hard wars and were not defeated by Muslims but by U.S. airpower. Are you implying that they are not willing to fight anymore, that all the fire has gone out of them?
(1) You infer from small subset examples that the whole will react similarly. This is a logical fallacy. You further suggest, with relatively little modern data, that the motivation for this behavior is religious, not secular.
Well, let's see. The Cypriots were willing to fight Turkey. The Serbs have been to war several times against Muslims since WWII. The Russians are fighting several Muslim terrorist factions at the moment.
Greece almost went to war with Turkey in 1996. You do remember the incident, don't you? Perhaps this will refresh your memory: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9601/turkey_greece_dispute/01-31/index.html
All-in-all, I just don't see EASTERN Europeans as hapless as all that. I'm not defending Western Europe, though I'm not convinced that the wish for national suicide is universal there.
Of all the nations of Europe, I give Poland a pass. The manner in which we've treated the Poles, these last seventy years, is nothing short of atrocious; the way they've stood against tyranny of every kind is nothing short of breathtaking.
Thanks. It's nice to be appreciated once in a while.
No. It just seems that way because we get a lot of English-language press online. The Spaniards are at the forefront.
Okay, I got ahead of myself. Still, Blair is no great savior of British culture. What group of Republicans is defending the Spanish? Well, none. And they are right not to. I'd prefer it if we were not 'overlooking' Blair's multi-cultural garbage either. Blair is not at fault for what is happening in the BENELUX anymore than in Scandinavia. However, Republicans are very good at pointing out the flaws in those countries, while 'overlooking' what Blair's England is doing.
All of this should be roundly denounced.
Now, now. You and I may disagree about a great deal, but up until this, I've never thought your intellectual honesty in doubt. Many, many of those parties are fascists, or worse. Not all; many. Undoubtedly, the remainder are smeared so by their own press and ours, not to mention government officials of every stripe; but no one ever thought bureaucrats or politicians smart or wise. But let's be frank here.
So, would you consider the Vlaams Belang as being 'fascist?' Check them out here: http://www.flemishrepublic.org/manifesto.htm
They're standing up in Belgium. Why aren't they getting support from the U.S. Right?
Would you consider the British National Party to be 'fascist?' Or the Hellenic Front in Greece? Just which of the European right-wing parties (many of them religiously affiliated) are you considering fascist?
This is the fate of all pro-Catholic parties in Europe. You know, that great place that will march to war to battle Islam?
You might want to actually get to know, Poland for example.
WARSAW, Poland — Lawmakers have drawn up a resolution naming Jesus Christ as the honorary king of Poland, but have failed to win support from the country's powerful Roman Catholic church.
Lawmakers for the ruling Law and Justice party and League of Polish Families as well as the opposition Peasants Party back the resolution, said Szymon Ruman, spokesman for parliamentary speaker Marek Jurek.
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3838
The pro-Catholic party controls a huge chunk of Parliament. They aren't vilified inside Poland, I was referring to U.S. press coverage that painted them as NAZIs.
Now, is a nation whose ruling coalition actively promotes honoring Christ as 'king' likely to be a doormat for Muslims?
Spain may have gone socialist, but Greece turned rightward. So did Germany. Poland went farther right than anyone. Russia is reclaiming its Orthodox heritage. Ukraine the same.
Sorry. I don't share the pessimism on this board on Europe as a whole. Britain and France - yeah they're toast. The East? Not a chance. If America would lead more decisively, then we could make this less painful for all of us.
The U.S. can play a decisive role in helping Europe find itself again, just like it did in the Cold War. That would be a great boon to the world.
...is that the goalposts are fixed.
I think we need to get something straight here. My argument is that there are no significant bodies of European Christians willing to fight for their faith, per se. In response to this, you assert that (1) there are a large number of religious Europeans (a point I'm not contesting); (2) that there are a lot of Europeans willing to kill other people (again, an uncontested point); and therefore, following from (1) and (2), (3) there are a lot of Europeans willing to kill or die in the name of their faith. There are so many logical fallacies in that conclusion that I honestly don't know where to start. What I will say is that I think either you mean something else when you write, or we are formally speaking past each other.
Now, to get to the meat of it:
Russia is doing business with Iran, that is true. Of course, we do robust business with the Saudis, even while elements of that regime back insurgents who kill our soldiers in Iraq. Not to mention the alliance we've made with Pakistan, and overlooked its nasty and ongoing connections to the Taliban.
Now, you see what I mean? You'd put forward the idea that there are many European Christians who would go to war over their faith; I said not so much. You said the Slavs; I pointed out that the largest group of Slavs currently in existence is in fact perfectly comfortable doing business with the best-known Islamic theocracy on Earth. To this, you respond with what is either a demi-tu quoque or an extraordinary nonsequitur.
Let us be frank: The Russians will not be dying in any holy wars any time soon.
From there, however, we have what appears to be more of your wandering afield:
I'd prefer the Russians to be on board against Iran, but I take comfort in the following words of the Patriarch of Moscow. You see, the Muslims and some Jews in Russia objected to classes on Christian Orthodoxy. ...
[quote omitted for space purposes]
...
Doesn't seem remarkably multi-cultural or defeatist, does it? Elsewhere I've seen, now that four provinces require the classes, that Alexy has basically said to Muslims, "Get over it."
I'm afraid Orthodoxy is back in Russia, and the outlook for close cooperation with Islam is not promising long-term.
We need a quick sidebar here, counselor. The Orthodox Church in Russia is so deeply entwined with the State -- and has been for centuries, and not in a good way at all -- that were those morons who prattle on about the Separation of Church and State remotely right on any level, I'd (1) ratify their ideas and (2) seek to export it to Russia. Put a little less obliquely, the Patriarch of All Russia will say what he's going to say, and when Vladimir Putin tells him to be quiet, he will be quiet.
Assuming, purely for the sake of argument and to avoid the sputtering, that he's serious, and he won't be deterred, of course he's interested in inculcating Orthodoxy in the children of Russia. (Those who are left. How's that centuries-old Orthodox teaching on the licitness of abortion holding up among those devoutly Christian Slavs?) I'll grant you all that. It's not my point; my point is, how many Russians -- who abort like crazy, whose attendance at church is not exactly sky-high, and who are not filling the seminaries to bursting -- are going to go to war for Christendom or Christianity or religion or whatever against Islam?
Statistically, none. They'll kill and die, but it won't be for religion.
Most of the estimates I've seen place the number of practicing Orthodox in Serbia at around 78%. If you spent time among Serbians, then you would understand that they fought for both the Pantocreator and the land. These two are not in conflict.
(I appreciate the spelling correction.)
I had the pleasure of briefly dating a girl who was a first-generation Serb during my college career. Beautiful, brilliant young woman, with a smile that could cut you in half. Orthodox to the core which, when coupled with a Catholic to the core Thomas, yielded a very short relationship. (Much more Russian Orthodox than Greek Orthodox, if you catch my drift.) At any rate, while we didn't date for very long, we did have lunch together off an on, and kept in touch by email and sometims by phone through my first year in law school which, incidentally, would have ended in the spring of 1999.
Now, you may remember that we boofed things badly by helping the KLA set up a terrorist narco-haven around that time, and in the interest of intellectual candor, I'll concede that I was an idiot and supported that. So, in the conversation that ended our friendship, I got to hear about the thousand and one reasons why what we were doing was wrong. Funny thing? 90% of it dealt with the land, with history, and with doomed but noble Serbian stands. The 10% that touched on Christianity -- mind you, this was to a Catholic -- all dealt with the "historically Christian" character of the place itself.
Now, I'll be the first to concede that the Balkan (and to a lesser extent, Orthodox) worldview has always puzzled me a bit, but for a girl who'd spent all but the first four years of her existence in this country, this seemed an odd way to convince me that religion was the foremost issue at work.
Anecdote is not the singular of data, but even so, most of what I've seen and heard deals with land, not faith. While the two are not in conflict (I never said they were), I'd say something about "priorities." I invite correction.
The basic tone on this board is that Europeans are simply, as a mass, willing to roll over for the Muslims. The Serbians were not, and are not. The Macedonians aren't either. These are tough people who fought long, hard wars and were not defeated by Muslims but by U.S. airpower. Are you implying that they are not willing to fight anymore, that all the fire has gone out of them?
In order:
(1) They are. All the data suggests as much.
(2) Now, here we go again. The Serbians were not willing to yield their preeminence of place in Yugoslavia, but never seemed to mention Christianity in that, except when they were killing Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians (and Catholic Bosnians and Muslim Croats). I've touched on Kosovo above. I confess to knowing nothing about the Macedonian impulse in the last fifteen years. I will, once again, note that I'm not saying they won't fight and kill; I'm saying they won't fight and kill for their faith. As yet, I see no evidence to the contrary.
Well, let's see. The Cypriots were willing to fight Turkey. The Serbs have been to war several times against Muslims since WWII. The Russians are fighting several Muslim terrorist factions at the moment.
Greece almost went to war with Turkey in 1996. You do remember the incident, don't you?
You know, child that I am, I do, seeing as how I ended up writing a paper on it. I must have missed the battle standards with (in Greek, of course) Pro Gloriam Dei! and Deus lo volt! Could you perhaps send me some links?
Every conflict you've described, including that of the much-sainted Slavs, has been secular -- for land, for political power, for rights secular. You've shown -- for a very good reason -- no evidence to the contrary.
Okay, I got ahead of myself. Still, Blair is no great savior of British culture. What group of Republicans is defending the Spanish? Well, none. And they are right not to. I'd prefer it if we were not 'overlooking' Blair's multi-cultural garbage either. Blair is not at fault for what is happening in the BENELUX anymore than in Scandinavia. However, Republicans are very good at pointing out the flaws in those countries, while 'overlooking' what Blair's England is doing.
You of all people should know better than to conflate Republicans with conservatives.
You'll find an entirely human tendency to side with one's somewhat despicable allies against one's more nauseating enemies. Perhaps not the most admirable impulse ever, but frankly, not something I'm going to spend a great deal of time railing against.
So, would you consider the Vlaams Belang as being 'fascist?'
They're standing up in Belgium. Why aren't they getting support from the U.S. Right?
Would you consider the British National Party to be 'fascist?' Or the Hellenic Front in Greece? Just which of the European right-wing parties (many of them religiously affiliated) are you considering fascist?
In order: No; yes; no; and just a year or two ago, the Freedom Party (Austria) would have come to mind, but what with all the schisming with the Alliance for the Future of Austria and whatnot, I lose track of the current platforms of the various parties on the ground. The National Front in France is tickling the edge of my mind for some reason, too.
I'll be the first to say that there's a difference between being right-wing -- even "far" right-wing, whatever that means -- and fascist. But once the blood-and-soil angle mixes with certain kinds of nationalization of the economy, we have issues.
The pro-Catholic party controls a huge chunk of Parliament. They aren't vilified inside Poland, I was referring to U.S. press coverage that painted them as NAZIs.
Your antecedent was unclear. My apologies. I should have said, What does that have to do with the price of cheese? We were, after all, speaking of a willingness to shed one's own, or another's, blood, for one's faith.
Now, is a nation whose ruling coalition actively promotes honoring Christ as 'king' likely to be a doormat for Muslims?
Give them twenty years. Actually, maybe not Poland, but the rest of them? C'mon. And this is still different from a willingness to march to war for faith.
Spain may have gone socialist, but Greece turned rightward. So did Germany. Poland went farther right than anyone. Russia is reclaiming its Orthodox heritage. Ukraine the same.
Funny thing about those rightward turns: They don't seem to have mobilized for conflict with any Muslim country. Odd, huh? Almost as if this talk of "rightward turns" is utterly irrelevant to our discussion.
I don't know that there will be enough Russians or Ukrainians of any stripe in twenty years to make your notes on them relevant, seeing as how they keep killing their next generation (doubtless out of some new variant on Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy -- or is it the resurgent "Uniate" churches that are pushing that theology?).
Sorry. I don't share the pessimism on this board on Europe as a whole. Britain and France - yeah they're toast. The East? Not a chance. If America would lead more decisively, then we could make this less painful for all of us.
With the possible exception of Poland, and maybe the Balkans if we can convince them that a good ethnic war is in the offing, gotta disagree with you. In fact, I'd wager a steak dinner -- at Ruth's Chris, at Burns, what have you -- that in twenty years, EU integration will have sapped the lot of any fight left in them. The ones remaining, that is.
The U.S. can play a decisive role in helping Europe find itself again, just like it did in the Cold War. That would be a great boon to the world.
Yes it could, and it would; but neither they, nor we, have any interest in that.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
that most caliphs were powerless figureheads (and this includes the Turkish Sultans who also bore the title) with less power than the current Queen of England. A good many of them were alcoholics or drug addicts, sunk in the pleasures of their harems, who paid no attention to governing their realm or presiding over the Islamic religion, allowing corrupt underlings to rule (and misrule) for them. A new caliphate might be just the thing to tame Islam. (Said tongue in cheek)
I understand you to say:
- Caliphs were powerless figureheads
- Corrupt underlings to (mis)ruled for them
- A new caliph would have as much effect.
But I don't see why a modern caliphate would act the same, given the current world political climate and Islamic zeal. An Islamic ruler would have to toe the line, or someone would blow themselves up.
Furthermore, whether the guy at the top is directing things or his underlings are, someone is.
And there is the matter of coordinated bargaining. Just because the bargaining would be disorganized doesn't mean we could avoid bargaining with the Islamic Empire.
So I must not be understanding you properly.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
as precedent here aren't we? I was suggesting that we look at the real caliphate and what it achieved and where it failed. Any reason to believe it would be any less dysfunctional if given a third run? Given that the sources of disunity and strife in the Islamic world are even greater than they were in the 12th or 18th centuries I suspect that a new caliphate (unless it was purely symbolic) would be about as unworkable as communism. There's no way all those strongmen and theocrats in the Middle East are going to cede their power away.
But that's no reason to give them new areas to govern, new peoples to enslave.
Your reasoning appears to be that since a new caliphate will (you're sure) be as inept as the others, the thing to do is to allow one to coalesce so that it can collapse.
In only a few hundred years.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
While religious differences are real and have been a force for conflict in the past and will continue to be in the future, religious differences don't fully explain the violence in Iraq. Many areas of the country were mixed between Sunnis and Shiites, and its been only recently that they have been separating like oil and water.
The reason for the change are political forces, created or unleashed by the US invasion. As you recognized, US policy is at least responsible for taking the lid off of a capped religious conflict. I think this change deserves more importance than you give it credit for.
Even if you accept that the religious differences drive the conflict, you'd still have to admit that political force can influence the scale or character of the conflict. Had the post-war been better managed, the security situation may have been less bleak in general, and religious differences would not be as salient as they are today. At the very least, US policy matters concerning the scale of the conflict.
But don't forget that Saddam was an active particpant in fueling the terror war in general, even though he was trying to keep it on the downlow. And God only knows what would have happened in he died and his psychotic sons got control.
The fundamental logic of this post is very deeply flawed.
Yes, there are tensions and fault lines in the mid east that span millennia, and far predate not only Bush 43 but the United States. Yes, no less a villain than Osama Bin Laden has agitated for a return of a worldwide Caliphate combining secular and religious authority.
That those fault lines existed, and can be discovered by "no history expert" spending a few minutes on Wikipedia, speaks only to the delicacy of the situation the US jumped into.
All that history means is that the US should have thought hard before entering such a powderkeg, and should have entered only with a plan designed to avoid sparking a conflagration.
That Bush 43 entered a situation that was high risk with no plan does not absolve him of responsibility for what he unleashed; it instead just underscores the lack of planning and responsible leadership that have marked his tenure in office.
When someone smokes a cigarette while pumping gas, you don't say the resulting fire wasn't their fault because gasoline has always been flammable. When someone tosses a live grenaded into the munitions storeroom, you don't blame the resulting explosion on the inherent explosiveness of munitions.
are you saying that the region was stable before Bush43 was elected? Because if you aren't then I think you're running afoul of your own "deeply flawed" logic rule.
It seems to me that you are proposing what for lack of a better phrase could be called the "Ostrich strategy." A strategy that we've essentially pursued in the Middle East since 1979 of burying our collective head in the sand and hoping for the best.
For the life of me, I don't see how we are worse off for "sparking a conflagration", assuming such a conflagration exists because I see no real evidence of it. Ethiopia and Somalia, for instance, have been at war nearly constantly since at least 1977. Iran has been making loud noises and attempting to throw its weight around since 1979 and we've already fought one war with Iran over navigation rights in the Persian Gulf.
It isn't like Islamic extremism just suddenly developed.
The region was, and is, unstable, even beyond the borders of Iraq. Egypt, for example, is an accident waiting to happen, and I wouldn't write any guarantees that the Saudi royal family maintains its hegemony even through my lifetime.
Neither am I advocating the ostrich strategy.
All the same, as someone with your education and experience realizes well, there are options other than ignoring the Middle East and hoping it heals itself, and making a move, any move, just to be taking action.
Where I disagree with the logic of the main post is the suggestion that those pre-existing fault lines, and not the actions we took, are all-controlling, and that somehow we, and Bush, should not be held responsible for the choices we, and Bush, made. Sure, the mideast had fault lines, and sure, there are bad guys who would love to restore an oppressive, Sharia driven Islamic caliphate that runs from Indonesia to sub-Saharan Africa to the Pyrenees. So what? The question was whether fighting this war, at this time, with the resources and allies we had in hand, was the best and most prudent response. If it was, then Bush was right, and so will be judged by history; if it wasn't, then Bush was wrong, and so will be judged by history. Either way, the pre-existing situation in the mideast is just the background against which his decisions were made, and not some kind of "not be judged" card. (By the same token, the pre-existing fault lines are just the background for those who counseled more sanctions, or just buying more oil and letting bygones be bygones - whatever the strategy, the background against which the choice was made remains just the background).
What he left out of his argument, and what I expect you could provide if you felt it was worth rehashing, is the critical missing part - that fighting this war, at this time, with this army, against this historical background, was the best of all the options available to us. I don't know that I would agree with your conclusion, but I'm pretty sure you would be addressing the issue that matters, and not papering it over with some historical nuggets you just discovered over at Wikipedia.
The really important issue is what we do next. In making this decision, the principle of sunk costs has to apply. Neither side, to my eyes, is really accepting that the sunk cost principle always controls. It doesn't matter if the war was a bad idea. It doesn't matter what we have spent, whether in money or human lives. What matters is what our actual, realistic options are today, and what consequences likely flow from the options we choose. If the best option for the long term security of this country is to put a million soldiers on the ground there, that's the best option, even if in the beginning it would have been better not to get started.
I would say that the fault lines did exist and what we've done in Iraq is the equivalent of flicking on the lights in the kitchen and watching the cockroaches scurry about.
Al Qaeda and Iran have been able to gain regional support by couching their actions in the context of a reaction to Western Imperialism. I think that Iraq and Afghanistan have stripped that argument away. Iran is now publicly declaring its own version of manifest destiny and al Qaeda is proving much happier, not to say more adept, at killing muslim civilians than American troops.
Were I reducing national strategy to military tactical terms I'd say we are either in a movement to contact or a reconnaisance in force and I think that in the context of the wake up call we received on 9/11 that the war with Iraq was necessary and one of three or four virtually inevitable wars we will have to fight in the next decade.
I'm a "in for a penny, in for a pound" type myself and in this particular event I believe that if this were important enough to do at all it remains important enough to conclude it on our terms. I believe we've basically wagered our international influence upon the outcome here and no matter what the cost we're in way too deep to even think about pulling a full-Murtha.
"That Bush 43 entered a situation that was high risk with no plan does not absolve him of responsibility for what he unleashed; it instead just underscores the lack of planning and responsible leadership that have marked his tenure in office."
Statements like this as well as comparing a war with so many variables to smoking while pumping gas are nonsensical.
This current chaos was inevitable. Eventually, it had to happen. Iraq was only being held together by fear. Do I think mistakes were made? Yes, I do. I think we should have been tougher on the citizenry when we arrived in Baghdad, and not allowed them to loot. I understand the logic behind allowing them to do so... it is their country... they must take responsiblity... give them a taste of their own unlawful chaos... perhaps they will be motivated to create a lawful govenrment quicker. I also realize we could not have stopped it altogether, but I wonder what would have happened if we would have acted like it was "our country now and you can't steal our stuff". I'm sure the rest of the world would have breen appalled (even more than it was), and things might not have gone any better in the long run. BUT, I'm not going to particpate in any recrimination for what was done in good faith.
We need to stay the course. (I've made this same analogy before, so please pardon the repeat for those of you who have read it). I don't mean that we keep doing the same thing: A golf course has many holes, with different degrees of difficulty. You don't use the same strategy for every hole. And sometimes, you end of playing 18 holes when you started out to play only 9. But the thing you don't do is pick up your balls and go home when the course gets tough. Let's face it, it is a new course. Your exit strategy is to stay the course and finish playing to the last hole. And the last thing you need when you are stuck in a sandtrap is an angry mob (who doesn't even understand the game to begin with) on the sidelines demanding to know you when you are going to be done; or worse, demanding you give up.
As soon as someone goes down the path of "Bush had no plan". No need to read anything elae they write.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
is hardly a prototype of the "convert or die" sect in modern radical Islam. Founded in the eight century, the Abbasids presided over a multi-ethnic empire and were tolerant in matters of religion. Many Persian practices were adopted in the style of governance. Islamic culture and learning flourished during this time, often attracting the admiration of the rival Byzantine empire. Over time, the caliphs became increasingly attracted to high living and their military prowess declined. Their empire became more dependent on Turkish soldiery.
The Abbasid caliphate was destroyed, along with Baghdad, by the (non-Islamic) Mongol invasion in 1258.
The Ottomans as well were far more tolerant of other religions than many other kingdoms in Europe at the time. My country of origin was part of that empire for 500 years and yet our religion survived and people were generally free to practice it. We certainly received a far better treatment than the Moors and the Jews did in Spain, that's for sure.
The Ottoman Empire? Tolerant? You mean the Ottoman Empire of the Janissaries? The Ottoman Empire that got tired of battling the Albanians and so forced them to convert at sword point.
You mean the Ottoman Empire that spread destruction throughout the Balkans with forced resettlements?
The Ottoman Empire was a nightmare that Christians survived by the grace of God. The Greeks and other nations that managed to throw off the Ottoman yoke are heroes for the ages.
The Moors were tossed out of Spain for one very important reason. The Spanish had no wish to attempt to govern Muslims. They knew from past experience that Muslims do not tolerate non-Muslim domination, and they didn't want the headaches.
Muslim nations/empires did not expel their Christian population because they needed them. The Dhimmi formed the economic backbone. They were the most educated, the most productive, and the most advanced citizens. The Ottomans relied on the Greeks, the Assyrians, the Armenians, and the Slavs in a way that no Christian nation has ever relied on or needed Muslims. Christians survived because they were useful - as long as they could be controlled. If they ever stepped out of line, they would be massacred or forced to convert.
You might want to check the historical record on Albania, for example:
The Ottoman Turks first focused their conversion campaigns on the Roman Catholic Albanians of the north and then on the Orthodox population of the south. The Ottoman authorities increased taxes, especially poll taxes, to make conversion economically attractive. During and after a Christian counteroffensive against the Ottoman Empire from 1687 to 1690, when Albanian Catholics revolted against their Muslim overlords, the Ottoman pasha of Pec, a town in the south of present-day Yugoslavia, retaliated by forcing entire Albanian villages to accept Islam at the pain of death.
He burnt down their farmlands, held young boys hostage to be sent to Istanbul (Constantinople). The Ottomans encouraged the new converts and the Albanian beys to move from the northern mountains to the fertile lands of Kosovo, which had been abandoned by thousands of Orthodox Serbs fearing reprisals for their collaboration with the Christian forces. This is how Kosovo became a Albanian Muslim majority area, which had till then belonged to the Serbian Orthodox Christians.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I meant tolerant in the relative context of the times. Of course all non-Muslims in the Ottoman empire were second-class citizens and there is no denying that. And of course there were forced conversions, killings, pillages, etc. My point was that the Ottomans were not any more savage than the rest of the empires at the times. There is just no way you could convince me that the Ottomans treated the non-Muslims in their lands any worse than the Spanish for example treated the Moors, or the Native Americans for that matter.
Ultimately, the point is that how empires treat other people is rarely depending on religion itself. The Spanish did not kill, maim and enslave native americans because Christianity is evil. Neither did the Ottomans pillage foreign lands and people because Islam is evil.
No it's not. And the conduct of folks in the middle centuries of the last millennium is not relevant to our expectations today.
Islam has managed to breed an evil, murderous side that advocates only killing infidels and basically imprisoning their own in theocracies that haven't managed to get beyond the seventh century.
Maybe all Muslims are not terrorists and butchers, but these days virtually ALL terrorists and butchers are Muslims.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Re: Islam has managed to breed an evil, murderous side that advocates only killing infidels and basically imprisoning their own in theocracies that haven't managed to get beyond the seventh century.
Back in the 16th century you could have said something very similar about Christendom. And whose civilization was it that conquered most of the world and has left its languages and religion dominant on almost every large, inhabited land mass on Earth?
in the 16th century any more.
And, frankly, it seems the only people who want to live in the 16th century are Muslims. And, again, they are also the only people who openly advocate and practice mass murder of both infidels and Muslims of different "denominations".
I'll give the Muslims a pass on everything they did in the previous Calaphates. If they are still bent out of shape about the 16th century, maybe we should go back into crusade mode and finish the job. I won't give them a pass on anything today.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
such as my apparent poor choice of using Wiki for demographics, culture, and religious inklings of the modern populations, and the fair rejoinders about flawed logic and such, the original premise I apparently POORLY tried to put forward remains.
The Sunnis and Shias have been at this a very very long time. And invoked Democracies or not, and restraint from casting aspersions at the Islamic faith in general or not, the expansions into regions held in previous Caliphates appears to be regaining Sunni or Shia ground.
The continuation of centuries-old corruption and deception and coercion continues unabated, and while the few who would attempt to stand up militarily to this latest wave, the remaining "international community" continues the ostrich game.
On the other side of all this, now or a hundred years from now, we will STILL find those who believe there is a renewed and re-emboldened push to spread Islam across wider regions of the world at the cost of innocent life, and we will STILL see those that continue to reject this reality
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
"The Sunnis and Shias have been at this a very very long time." - Haystack
No disagreement there! :>)
It all started just decades after the death of Mohammed, as the caliphate, which was formed to rule Arabs who had accepted Islam, acquired an empire. Once the Arabs had been unified under Islam, their inter-tribal wars for booty ceased, and all that energy was directed outside Arabia. The Byzantine and Persian empires, exhausted by decades of war, simply imploded and the Arabs filled the vacuum.
See:
http://countrystudies.us/syria/5.htm
Extract follows:
***************
Umayyad Caliphate
After Ali's murder in 661, Muawiyah--the governor of Syria during the early Arab conquests, a kinsman of Uthman, and a member of the Quraysh lineage of the Prophet--proclaimed himself caliph and established his capital in Damascus. From there he conquered Muslim enemies to the east, south, and west and fought the Byzantines to the north. Muawiyah is considered the architect of the Islamic empire and a political genius. Under his governorship Syria became the most prosperous province of the caliphate. Muawiyah created a professional army and, although rigorous in training them, won the undying loyalty of his troops for his generous and regularly paid salaries. Heir to Syrian shipyards built by the Byzantines, he established the caliphate's first navy. He also conceived and established an efficient government, including a comptroller of finance and a postal system.
Muawiyah cultivated the goodwill of Christian Syrians by recruiting them for the army at double pay, by appointing Christians to many high offices, and by appointing his son by his Christian wife as his successor. His sensitivity to human behavior accounted in great part for his political success. The modern Syrian image of Muawiyah is that of a man with enormous amounts of hilm, a combination of magnanimity, tolerance, and self-discipline, and of duha, political expertise-- qualities Syrians continue to expect of their leaders. By 732 the dynasty he founded had conquered Spain and Tours in France and stretched east to Samarkand and Kabul, far exceeding the greatest boundaries of the Roman Empire. Thus, Damascus achieved a glory unrivaled among cities of the eighth century.
Haystack,
I am not going to pick on you for your Wikipedia references to ancient history. I don't have a problem with the historical events that you have included. I just think in fairness we need to remember historical times that are ignored of forgotten. I recommend the following book
A Vanished World: Medieval Spain's Golden Age of Enlightenment
http://www.amazon.com/Vanished-World-Medieval-Spains-Enlightenment/dp/07...
For more than seven centuries, Christianity and Islam split the Iberian peninsula between them, with Jews forming a third major religious community. Sometimes there was "convivencia" (successful living-together); usually there was fighting, but at least there was mutual learning.
Ancient history can also give us hope if we remember that there have been good times as well as bad times through the course of mankind.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The tolerance and cultural flowering of medieval Spain are sometimes overstated by writers who want to believe that it was so.
It was all so much more complicated than that. For nearly 800 years, Spain was involved in incessant warfare (there is a reason you find more castles in Spain than anywhere else). Sometimes it was Christian kingdom versus Christian kingdom. Sometimes it was Muslim kingdom versus Muslim kingdom. Sometimes it was Christians versus Moors, with papal support making the Reconquista an official crusade. Some Christian warriors, such as El Cid, fought for Christian armies in one war, and for Muslim armies in the next.
In pretty much every kingdom, in every era, you faced what would today be considered intolerable prejudice if you did not belong to the approved state religion. A period of tolerance, in Al Andalus, meant that Jews and Christians were allowed to live, but did not mean that they weren't required to pay special taxes because of their choice of religion.
There were periods, relatively brief, when things worked. It's also true that much of what reached us from ancient Rome and Greece came to us via Al Andalus (something that would not have been required had not the Christian crusaders and the Ottoman conquerors in turn destroyed the legacy of Constantinople). Even accepting the positive moments, what really was and the story told sometimes diverge - for example, some modern historians uncritically accept Islamic tales that make the Cordoba of 900 AD a city of a million people, despite overwhelming evidence that the city was much smaller and less grand than that (although still larger and grander than Rome, Paris or London at that time).
It is a fascinating era to study, so long as you maintain your critical and sceptical facility.
The reader of ancient history does need to remain critical and skeptical. Some modern revisionists paint too glamorous a picture, and some paint too gloomy a picture. It really is a little bit of both with the fighting usually only interrupted for short periods of peace. Still, hooray for the times, though brief they may be, when people do tolerate one another.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
I'll meet you in Cordoba or Granada round about March, and we can continue this discussion over a pitcher of Sangria (beats the heck out of Sharia any day).
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
You say, " To suggest, however, that having chosen NOT to take him out would have left the world a safer place is just patently absurd."
As I recall (since I am now old enough to remember "ancient history"), the only folks to suggest precisely what you call "patently absurd" were the folks in the corrupt Republican administration of the Capo di Capi of the Bush Crime Family, "Poppy" Bush the First.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Bush Crime Family?
Please share with us the factual references to "Capo di Capi" suggesting Saddam remaining in power would make the world safer...
I will patiently await your reply.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your recent interest in RedState. While we received applications from many qualified candidates, we regret that we are unable to offer you a position in our organization at this time.
We wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors. Somewhere else.
Regards,
Mgmt.
------------
Fnord.
Since you can't refute the facts, you call the teacher names.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Especially comments like this:
I had an ancestor with Jan III Sobieski when he smashed the Turks outside Vienna. His crest is a cherished family possession. Are you saying the Poles didn't have the will to fight? Or the Greeks when they threw off the Turks? Or the Serbians? Or the Bulgarians? Or the Russians when they smashed one Muslim army after another?
If your criticism is directed at the Brits who aided and abetted the Turks out of fear of the Slavs, then I would agree with your conclusion. But given the history of fighting by countries like Poland, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Greece, and Hungary - I would seriously reduce the scope of that comment.
Now, about the rest of your post. I agree with most of it. But, then comes the disconnect in my mind. What has Bush possibly done to prepare us for this conflict between the Caliphate revivalist forces and the West? If you follow the work of Paul Cella, he has done a great job of pointing out the many ways in which the current Bush policy of praising Islam (and separating it from the 'radicals') is actually highly counterproductive.
You can marry that with the Bush Administration's support of the Balkans policies of Clinton, support for Turkey's entry into the EU, unwillingness to criticize Islam, unwillingness to stop Muslim immigration to the United States, and the single-minded assertion that tyranny alone is the problem in the ME and that Democracy will cure that. All of these things put the Bush Administration squarely opposed to your primary thesis in this post.
If this is a war to restart the Caliphate, and if it has deep and broad support among Muslims, then Democracy won't counteract that. Invading Iraq merely took down a secular, corrupt regime and now let this Jihadi cat out of the bag. If you are worried about stopping Jihadis, then it would seem that secular, socialist regimes whose primary enemies are Jihadis (like the Mulllahs in Iran) would be a pre-requisite.
Is Islam itself a threat? Or, are the poor people of the ME merely waiting for a chance to vote in elections which will lead to peace and prosperity? If Islam is the problem, then the current attempts in Iraq will lead nowhere. We will keep laboring to build something that can not be built, and bleeding KIA and WIA in the process.
So what is it? Can Democracy tame this pro-Caliphate impulse which is more religious than political in nature? If so, then the Bush strategy has some merit. Or is it precisely Islam that is the problem? Are the religious roots of this conflict between Muslim sects and Muslims versus non-Muslims so deeply rooted in the religion itself that it is impossible to overcome them?