“How do we fight, let alone prevail, against an enemy that we refuse to even name?”
OK, so let’s name him? Let’s call him Ancho.
Now, your “Muslim Conquest” vs. Christian Crusade map is pretty, to be sure. I find it a bit insulting to Christianity, though. What it demonstrates is that the Muslims were better at their Crusades than Christians were. It demonstrates nothing more.
(and it is not surprising. The Romans crucified the Christian’s God, which kind of maimed them pretty good. The fact that they were able to continue at all is nothing short of miraculous).
To use a counter example to your pretty map, consider the Six Day War. Look at the losses encountered by the Arabs and the precious few losses encountered by the Jews. This does NOT imply that the Jews were more dedicated to the destruction of their enemy. In fact, only one side, the Arabs, attempted to “destroy” the enemy. The Jews were simply better at the game of War. Imagine a map in front of you that show this. See?
According to the map in your imagination, the Jews of 1967 are barbarically making everyone Jewish. It is not so, Mr. Paine. They were simply better at defending Israel than their Arab neighbors were at destroying it.
OK, back to your pretty map: being less capable at oppression does not make one better, but don’t take my word for it. Consult your maps and compare.
“Every party cries out for liberty and toleration ‘till they get to be uppermost, and then will allow none.” – Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
You would not want to have been a non-Christian while the Crusades were in progress. The early Americans held their own Crusades, and if they had prevailed in their intention, we would have had a second inquisition. People were burned alive, beheaded and called bad names. It was horrible. Again, they were not as successful (I don’t have a map for this, but you can imagine one).
Failure is not a virtue, as your Map will attest. See the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Sanai? If you are like me, it just fills you with a sense of pride and righteous victory.
Ok, back to Ancho. The baser side of my humanity kind of agrees with you. I can tell that my Adaptive Unconscious is trying to figure out a way to move to your side of the camp. I am not convinced that Islam is the culprit. During the many Christian Crusades, from the Inquisition to the Jamestown Executions for improperly pious citizens, to the Crusades of Billy Graham, good people have been tortured in the name of Religion. Unless the religion mandates such, then it is not to blame. The people are.
I think there is a sub-culture among many Muslims that is to blame, and Islam is the tool they use to work their magic. One could argue, however, that the difference in this case is both subtle and irrelevant. Ancho has been using this pay book for a long time and has been more successful in his plays than his Christian rivals were. Ancho is who he is; he does what he does; and whether we label his actions as Islamic or Anchoic, or just call them something silly, Vercengetorcepholus or something, they are what they are.
Our enemy, as you indicated, is Ancho. What do we find so egregious about him? Vercengetorcepholus or something.
We need not combat Islam or a made up Holy War. Let’s target our Ancho, who now, thanks to your request, has been clearly named.
Paine: How do we fight, let alone prevail, against an enemy that we refuse to even name?
Myste: OK, so let’s name him? Let’s call him Ancho.
Paine: Ancho? Really? You want to name the most barbaric terrorists in our life time something that sounds like a fishy pizza topping?
Myste: Now, your “Muslim Conquest” vs. Christian Crusade map is pretty, to be sure. I find it a bit insulting to Christianity, though. What it demonstrates is that the Muslims were better at their Crusades than Christians were. It demonstrates nothing more. (and it is not surprising. The Romans crucified the Christian’s God, which kind of maimed them pretty good. The fact that they were able to continue at all is nothing short of miraculous).
Paine: Yeah, the crucifixion of Christ set them back …for about three days. After He came back from conquering death, His church has had a pretty good run over these last couple of thousand years though. “And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”
Myste: According to the map in your imagination, the Jews of 1967 are barbarically making everyone Jewish. It is not so, Mr. Paine. They were simply better at defending Israel than their Arab neighbors were at destroying it.
Paine: Hmmm, it is still early and I haven’t finished my Mountain Dew yet, so the map in my imagination is not coming into focus very clearly. Since that is the case, let’s go back to the map I posted. You are correct that it doesn’t show who won each of those battles, but merely who precipitated each battle. Since many of those “dots” represent battles in areas where Muslims were not even indigenous, it would suggest that they were the ones traveling to those areas bent on conquest. There were Christians in the Holy Lands however that were indigenous and thus the Christian Crusades to liberate them were executed.
Myste: You would not want to have been a non-Christian while the Crusades were in progress.
Paine: I don’t expect the cowardly side of my nature would want me to be contrary to whatever the identity of the attacking force was in any battle.
Myste: The early Americans held their own Crusades, and if they had prevailed in their intention, we would have had a second inquisition. People were burned alive, beheaded and called bad names. It was horrible. Again, they were not as successful (I don’t have a map for this, but you can imagine one).
Paine: When it comes to those being burned alive, I assume we are talking about the Salem witch trials. While I admit that those atrocities were committed in the name of God, the victims were only a handful and it was Christian pastors that finally brought that shameful note in history to an end. I don’t recall any Americans beheading anyone in the name of Christ though, and Google fails to produce any maps that speak to that. I guess I will have to take that on faith.
Myste: I am not convinced that Islam is the culprit.
Paine: In current times, Islam is not the culprit. Extremist Islam is.
Myste: …to the Crusades of Billy Graham, good people have been tortured in the name of Religion.
Paine: You are killing me here.
Myste: Unless the religion mandates such, then it is not to blame. The people are.
Paine: Aahh! Now we are finding common ground, my friend!
Myste: I think there is a sub-culture among many Muslims that is to blame, and Islam is the tool they use to work their magic.
Paine: Yes, that sub-culture is extremist Islam.
Myste: One could argue, however, that the difference in this case is both subtle and irrelevant.
Paine: Truly? I don’t think so. I think I’d be just find hanging with my mainstream Muslim friends, but would be rather uncomfortable in the company of ISIS “Muslims”. I have an aversion to cages, gasoline, and beheading swords. They tend to make me peevish.
Myste: We need not combat Islam or a made up Holy War. Let’s target our Ancho, who now, thanks to your request, has been clearly named.
Paine: I whole-heartedly concur with you. (Other than the name “Ancho” anyway.) Let’s indeed target the enemy, and not the faith that the enemy has usurped and perverted for their own ends. (By the way John, I have also whole-heartedly missed our little discussions. You truly crack me up, my friend!)
3 comments:
“How do we fight, let alone prevail, against an enemy that we refuse to even name?”
OK, so let’s name him? Let’s call him Ancho.
Now, your “Muslim Conquest” vs. Christian Crusade map is pretty, to be sure. I find it a bit insulting to Christianity, though. What it demonstrates is that the Muslims were better at their Crusades than Christians were. It demonstrates nothing more.
(and it is not surprising. The Romans crucified the Christian’s God, which kind of maimed them pretty good. The fact that they were able to continue at all is nothing short of miraculous).
To use a counter example to your pretty map, consider the Six Day War. Look at the losses encountered by the Arabs and the precious few losses encountered by the Jews. This does NOT imply that the Jews were more dedicated to the destruction of their enemy. In fact, only one side, the Arabs, attempted to “destroy” the enemy. The Jews were simply better at the game of War. Imagine a map in front of you that show this. See?
According to the map in your imagination, the Jews of 1967 are barbarically making everyone Jewish. It is not so, Mr. Paine. They were simply better at defending Israel than their Arab neighbors were at destroying it.
OK, back to your pretty map: being less capable at oppression does not make one better, but don’t take my word for it. Consult your maps and compare.
“Every party cries out for liberty and toleration ‘till they get to be uppermost, and then will allow none.” – Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
You would not want to have been a non-Christian while the Crusades were in progress. The early Americans held their own Crusades, and if they had prevailed in their intention, we would have had a second inquisition. People were burned alive, beheaded and called bad names. It was horrible. Again, they were not as successful (I don’t have a map for this, but you can imagine one).
Failure is not a virtue, as your Map will attest. See the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Sanai? If you are like me, it just fills you with a sense of pride and righteous victory.
Ok, back to Ancho. The baser side of my humanity kind of agrees with you. I can tell that my Adaptive Unconscious is trying to figure out a way to move to your side of the camp. I am not convinced that Islam is the culprit. During the many Christian Crusades, from the Inquisition to the Jamestown Executions for improperly pious citizens, to the Crusades of Billy Graham, good people have been tortured in the name of Religion. Unless the religion mandates such, then it is not to blame. The people are.
I think there is a sub-culture among many Muslims that is to blame, and Islam is the tool they use to work their magic. One could argue, however, that the difference in this case is both subtle and irrelevant. Ancho has been using this pay book for a long time and has been more successful in his plays than his Christian rivals were. Ancho is who he is; he does what he does; and whether we label his actions as Islamic or Anchoic, or just call them something silly, Vercengetorcepholus or something, they are what they are.
Our enemy, as you indicated, is Ancho. What do we find so egregious about him? Vercengetorcepholus or something.
We need not combat Islam or a made up Holy War. Let’s target our Ancho, who now, thanks to your request, has been clearly named.
Paine: How do we fight, let alone prevail, against an enemy that we refuse to even name?
Myste: OK, so let’s name him? Let’s call him Ancho.
Paine: Ancho? Really? You want to name the most barbaric terrorists in our life time something that sounds like a fishy pizza topping?
Myste: Now, your “Muslim Conquest” vs. Christian Crusade map is pretty, to be sure. I find it a bit insulting to Christianity, though. What it demonstrates is that the Muslims were better at their Crusades than Christians were. It demonstrates nothing more. (and it is not surprising. The Romans crucified the Christian’s God, which kind of maimed them pretty good. The fact that they were able to continue at all is nothing short of miraculous).
Paine: Yeah, the crucifixion of Christ set them back …for about three days. After He came back from conquering death, His church has had a pretty good run over these last couple of thousand years though. “And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”
Myste: According to the map in your imagination, the Jews of 1967 are barbarically making everyone Jewish. It is not so, Mr. Paine. They were simply better at defending Israel than their Arab neighbors were at destroying it.
Paine: Hmmm, it is still early and I haven’t finished my Mountain Dew yet, so the map in my imagination is not coming into focus very clearly. Since that is the case, let’s go back to the map I posted. You are correct that it doesn’t show who won each of those battles, but merely who precipitated each battle. Since many of those “dots” represent battles in areas where Muslims were not even indigenous, it would suggest that they were the ones traveling to those areas bent on conquest. There were Christians in the Holy Lands however that were indigenous and thus the Christian Crusades to liberate them were executed.
Myste: You would not want to have been a non-Christian while the Crusades were in progress.
Paine: I don’t expect the cowardly side of my nature would want me to be contrary to whatever the identity of the attacking force was in any battle.
Myste: The early Americans held their own Crusades, and if they had prevailed in their intention, we would have had a second inquisition. People were burned alive, beheaded and called bad names. It was horrible. Again, they were not as successful (I don’t have a map for this, but you can imagine one).
Paine: When it comes to those being burned alive, I assume we are talking about the Salem witch trials. While I admit that those atrocities were committed in the name of God, the victims were only a handful and it was Christian pastors that finally brought that shameful note in history to an end. I don’t recall any Americans beheading anyone in the name of Christ though, and Google fails to produce any maps that speak to that. I guess I will have to take that on faith.
Myste: I am not convinced that Islam is the culprit.
Paine: In current times, Islam is not the culprit. Extremist Islam is.
Myste: …to the Crusades of Billy Graham, good people have been tortured in the name of Religion.
Paine: You are killing me here.
Myste: Unless the religion mandates such, then it is not to blame. The people are.
Paine: Aahh! Now we are finding common ground, my friend!
Myste: I think there is a sub-culture among many Muslims that is to blame, and Islam is the tool they use to work their magic.
Paine: Yes, that sub-culture is extremist Islam.
Myste: One could argue, however, that the difference in this case is both subtle and irrelevant.
Paine: Truly? I don’t think so. I think I’d be just find hanging with my mainstream Muslim friends, but would be rather uncomfortable in the company of ISIS “Muslims”. I have an aversion to cages, gasoline, and beheading swords. They tend to make me peevish.
Myste: We need not combat Islam or a made up Holy War. Let’s target our Ancho, who now, thanks to your request, has been clearly named.
Paine: I whole-heartedly concur with you. (Other than the name “Ancho” anyway.) Let’s indeed target the enemy, and not the faith that the enemy has usurped and perverted for their own ends. (By the way John, I have also whole-heartedly missed our little discussions. You truly crack me up, my friend!)
Post a Comment