Blaming the Crusades for Jihad

Ryan Mauro is a fellow with the Clarionproject.org, the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent national security analyst for Fox News Channel. He can be contacted at ryanmauro1986@gmail.com.


islamic-crusades1The cultural relativists on the Left and apologists for radical Islam like to blame the Crusades for almost everything. The Muslim extremists are only responding to the deeds of Christian extremists, the argument goes. In his new book, Sir Walter Scott’s Crusades and Other Fantasies, former Muslim Ibn Warraq takes on this misleading theme intended to blame the West for the Muslim world’s troubles.

The claim that the Crusades are the starting point of Islamic jihad is basically the political application of, “For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.” It equates the Christian beliefs driving the Crusades with the Islamic beliefs driving jihad.

Ibn Warraq’s new book tackles this misconception. Islamic atrocities were not provoked by the Crusaders’ own reprehensible acts, but preceded them. Islamic jihad was not triggered by the Crusades; it preceded them.

In fact, as explained by Warraq and in books like The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and What’s So Great About Christianity, the Christian world was reduced to about one-third of what it was by the sword of jihad. The Crusades were launched with the objective of, without any exaggeration, saving Europe and Western civilization from Sharia.

My personal experience in school is that the opposite was taught. The Crusades were framed as offensive and the jihads as defensive. The Crusaders were depicted as barbarians, particularly to Jews. I cannot recall hearing about a single Islamic atrocity before or during these wars.

This is a common phenomenon, Warraq explains, and it’s part of an overall trend when it comes to education about the history of Islam.

“What are seen as positive aspects of Islamic Civilization are ecstatically praised, even exaggerated, and all the negative aspects are imputed to the arrival of the pestilential Westerners, and where the Arabs, Persians and Muslims in general are seen as passive victims,”  Warraq said in an interview.

As proof, Warraq and the other authors mention the countless mass killings and persecutions of Christians and Jews before the Crusades. The destruction of over 30,000 churches during a 10-year period starting in 1004 AD is little-known. So is the burning of crosses, the beheading of converts to Christianity from Islam, the destruction of Christian holy sites like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the forced tax for non-Muslims (the jizya) and the list goes on and on.

Modern-day Islamists and their apologists point to these times as proof of the historical tolerance of Islamic civilization. Islam-ruled Spain (Andalucia) and the city of Cordoba are held up as the golden examples of interfaith coexistence. For example, the Islamic Society of North America’s official publication included an article in its March-April issue titled, “Andalucia: Paradise Still Lost?”

One of the most interesting claims made in Waraq’s book is that the Crusades did not have a permanent impact on the Muslim psychology. Part of the reason is because the Muslim world viewed the wars as an overall victory.

“Many believe that modern Muslims have inherited from their medieval ancestors memories of crusader violence and destruction. But nothing could be further from the truth. By the fourteenth century, in the Islamic world the Crusades had almost passed out of mind,” Warraq said.

This begs the question of what revived the relevancy of the Crusades in how the Muslim world views the West.

Warraq says that the Crusades were reentered into the discourse by Europe. Imperialism was purposely framed as a continuation of the Crusades; something particularly agitating for the growing Arab nationalist movement.

“Nineteenth, and even early twentieth century Europeans unashamedly used crusader rhetoric and a tendentious reading of crusader history to justify their imperial dreams of conquest,” according to Warraq.

The Arab world’s insecurities over its falling behind were blamed on the European colonists that were viewed as Crusaders. This theme “eases the guilty consciences of the Arabs themselves: it is not their fault that they are such abject failures—it is all the fault of the Crusaders.”

In addition, attributing the backwardness of the Muslim world to the “Crusaders” allowed Sharia Law to escape responsibility. At the same time, complaining about the Crusades actually provided Muslims with hope in the face of Western superiority.

As Dinesh D’Souza explains, “So the Crusades can be seen as a belated, clumsy and unsuccessful effort to defeat Islamic imperialism.”

However, Warraq emphasizes that his point isn’t to blame the West for its use of Crusader rhetoric. The jihad existed before the Crusades and during the period when they “had almost passed out of mind” of the Muslim world.

“My point is that Islamic jihad did not end with the defeat of the Crusaders. On the contrary, in Islamic doctrine all the later Islamic conquests were seen as a part of the religious duty of carrying out jihad until the entire world submits to Islam,” he said.

Blaming the Crusades is a way of denying the Islamic supremacist ideology that has driven the conflict from the beginning.

This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Gamal

    As bad as the crusaders were they are better than we are. They went to save their fellow Christians, we just sit by as they are murdered in the Middle East.

    • ben t

      Mohammad died 632 A.D. In 634 Arabs attacked the Christian city of Damascus, conquering it and going on, within just 100 yrs to attack and conquer all of Egypt, N. Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, Southern France, (what is now Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iraq,) repeated attacks on Byzantium AND Constantinople itself, ALL OVERWHELMINGLY CHRISTIAN AREA, not to mention Zoroastrian Persia, Afghanistan and Hindu India up to the Indus River all in the name of Jihad and all within ONLY 100 yrs of Mohammad”s death!! In the next 100 yrs. Arab invaders took all of Sicily, maintained rule over the French Riviera, cities on the Italian mainland, took most of Anatolia, and the Christian areas west of Constantinople, their slaver ships raiding the coasts of Northern France, England, Scotland, Ireland and ICELAND!! I’m 76 yrs old . I read about this mohammaden history in the ’40′s and early ’50′s. It was only after 400 yrs of moslem aggression that the Christians got their act together and fought back. REMEMBER!! The literally fabulous city of Constantinople (which was still over half Christian by Ottoman census in 1900 A.D.) was taken only 560 yrs ago. It took the Spanish 800 yrs to retake Spain.
      ON TO CONSTANTINOPLE!!!!

      • http://thereligionofconquest.info/ Damon Whitsell

        BEST EVER PRESENTATION OF THE HISTORY OF ISLAMIC JIHAD – In 15 Minutes

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe6FRC4HINY&feature=player_embedded

        • paendragon

          Lived up to its title alright! Thanks!

      • Daniel

        I don’t argue with your other statements, but I really wonder from which source did you learn Constantinople was OVER half Christian in 1900 AD? I am from Turkey and that is a VERY silly claim. I say like this, because the Ottoman archive system was more developed than his European counterparts until the disintegration, and all the population records are still open for investigation. After WWI, Christian people who were from other areas of the country were forced to migrate out of the country but Istanbul was exception and they were all maintained (they are still a small minority)

    • Smoking Hamster

      If I became president, one of my first orders as commander in chief would be to send anti-air guns to South Sudan.

    • frjohnmorris

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24239779?SThisFB

      This is an expression of the rebels Obama is backing.

    • frjohnmorris

      Not quite, the Crusades idea of rescuing the Eastern Christians was to force them to accept papal domination.

      • Gamal

        I read the speeches in which Christian leaders asked for help for the Christians of Palestine and they didn’t say “go to war and establish papal domination” they said “help our suffering brothers”.

        • frjohnmorris

          What makes a difference is not what some of them said. It is what they did. place they took, they removed the Orthodox hierarchs and replaced them with Roman Catholic bishops loyal to Rome. They also stole everything they could and sent them back to Europe. Read about the 4th Crusade and the pillage of Constantinople.

          • Gamal

            I read some pages on the 4th crusade and it appears to me that Alexios IV and others bribed leaders of the 4th crusade to overthrow emperor Alexios III and that some did and some refused. The goal originally was to defeat Saladin whose followers were persecuting Christians. That said the willingness of the Crusaders to attack other Christians in Constantinople puts a shadow on the whole enterprise.

          • frjohnmorris

            That is my point. No doubt the Byzantine leaders were less than ethical. But so were the Crusaders, who made the schism between East and West permanent.. Before the Crusades, the average layman saw the schism as a quarrel between Patriarchs. The Crusaders brought the schism down to the level of the laity when they saw their Orthodox Bishops replaced by the Crusaders by Roman Catholic Bishops. There is no doubt that Pope Urban saw the submission of the Eastern Churches to Rome as one of the major purposes of the Crusades.

          • paendragon

            You have no point. The Crusaders attacked the Greeks for perverting the Crusade by ordering them to help one faction against another; Alexios had ordered them not to leave, nor to be provisioned, until and unless they helped him against his rivals. So they refused and attacked him in stead. Simple!

          • paendragon

            The Crusaders attacked the Greeks for perverting the Crusade by ordering them to help one faction against another; Alexios had ordered them not to leave, nor to be provisioned, until and unless they helped him against his rivals. So they refused and attacked him in stead. Simple!

  • Chezwick

    It is amazing how often moral relativists point to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition to support their thesis that Christianity is every bit as intolerant as Islam. Our counter-argument should be not JUST that the Crusades was a RESPONSE to Muslim aggression and conquest, but that the LAST Crusade was some 700 years ago….and as far as the Spanish Inquisition goes, as reprehensible as it was, it claimed less than 3000 victims over the centuries of its existence.

    Muslims are ALWAYS talking about “context” to mitigate the hatred in their creed. It’s time we employed a little context too!

    • Smoking Hamster

      I find it amusing that the most likely critics of religion, socialists, complain about the Inquisition and blame it on religion. Actually it was a political operation which simply used religious organizations.

      You are correct. More people were killed in a few hours on 911 than in 300 year of inquisition.

      • Joel Cairo

        This is correct, but neglects the fact that there was financial gain at stake too. Eliminate the heretics and take their wealth for your own use, as well as react to political circumstances that are untoward your goals.

    • frjohnmorris

      You cannot blame all Christians for the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. They were both Roman Catholic actions and not all Christians are Roman Catholics. Remember Eastern Orthodox Christians consider the Crusades a form of Roman Catholic aggression against our Church. Then there is the Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) which killed tens of thousands of people and is one of the greatest atrocities of European history. One Catholic officer asked his superior who to kill and was told to kill them all because God would sort out the Catholics form the heretics.

    • Nagesha

      Also, the Christians doing the inquisition learned this ‘craft’ from the muslims who had conquered spain and had conditioned the non-muslims into dhimmitude, death for apostasy, & blasphemy, etc. Now the christian spaniards were throwing the muslims out and were using some of what they learned from their former masters to ensure loyalties. If non-muslims are not ready to be as brutal as the muslims, then the muslims will win.

  • Khalifa_ibn_Karah

    Seems that everyone is overlooking the fact that the Christian world has advanced morally and socially some over the last 917 years. The Muslim world has not. In fact, if it was indeed as benign as portrayed in western histories (it was not) then it has gone backward. People overlook that Islam was involved in slavery, including trading in both black and white slaves up until the early 1800′s. The Muslims of N. Africa captured ships and sold Europeans into slavery regularly, and we are not talking the random pirates. The various rulers along the coast were heavily involved in it, and got their choice of the captives, either for ransom, or servitude in whatever the capacity. Western Civilization has come a long way, but sadly the Nation of Islam has not, and will not so long as they carry their religion around their neck like a dog tied to a millstone.

    • m4253y

      “People overlook that Islam was involved in slavery, including trading in both black and white slaves up until the early 1800′s.”

      actually, no, they are still doing it today. they’re sex-slave industry is alive, well and thriving.

      • defcon 4

        In Mauritania and the Sudan it’s not just sex slaves. Ask Simon Deng.

    • Guest

      The ME Islamic world is still involved in slavery.

    • muchiboy

      Certainly Islam is in crisis and needs to embrace Modernity,much as our Western,Christian society has largely founded,embraced and run with it.Islam must overcome it’s internal and historical divisions and schisms,much as Christianity has overcome hers.Muslims are made to suffer more from such divisions and intolerance than are non Muslims.It is a minority of Muslims,perhaps no more than 10%,who support and engage in this fearful,brutal,suppressive and repressive belief system.

      • Drakken

        Your either an ignorant hapless leftist, or a jihadist collaborator? The only way islam can reform is we infidels finally destroy it once and for all time.

      • defcon 4

        Yes, it’s all just such a minor problem. Only a few muzzies. We should all just ignore it, until the islamic genocide and persecution comes to our doorstep and the “moderate” islam0nazis stand by and do nothing.

  • muchiboy

    I would say that time should go a long way in healing historical wrongs and acts.But it is nonsensical to dismiss the impact of history on the present.Crusaders and Jihadists have much in common,but the day of the Crusader is long past.The Jihadists need return to their desert roots and tents in Saudi Arabia and sip sweet coffee.And the Zionists need pack up their Kibbutz and return to Europe or better still work with the Palestinians to accommodate both Semitic peoples under one “greater tent” in that conflicted land.

    • Paul Austin Murphy

      More Jew-obsession? The ‘Zionists need to return to Europe’. You mean ‘Jews’ don’t you? But you are not honest enough with yourself to say that.

      Return to Europe? 850,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands mainly after 1948 but the rot had settled in before that. Arab lands are not Europe. And do you mean the very same Europe in which six million Jews were murdered or another one?

      Also, the Crusades were a consequence of a previous 400 years of jihad and conquest of Christian and Jewish lands – Syria, the Holy Land, north Africa, etc.

      You really don’t like inconvenient facts do you? Especially if they paint people with brown skin in a bad light. Yet your racism towards Jews seem perfectly respectable because politically correct or Leftist. And that’s forgetting your positive or ‘inverted’ racism towards Muslims in which you treat them as Eternal Victims and children.

      • muchiboy

        I think “Zionist” is a good fit here,somewhere between Crusader and Jihadist.My use was purposeful.Zionism hides a plethora of sins against the Palestinian people,e.g.occupation,de facto ethnic cleansing.Why would anyone question the sentiment felt or harbored by the Middle East region in context used here?
        You apparently see the world as a global chess game of sorts,moving 850,000 Arabs here,a similar number of European Jews there,etc.,all to satisfy the goals of Zionism.

        • Paul Austin Murphy

          It was 850,000 Jews, not Arabs, who were kicked out of Arab lands. A global chess game perhaps, but why did you ignore that massive fact and talk about all Jews coming from Europe?

          You ignore the ethnic cleansing I mentioned. Why only Israel? Why were the Nazis and now the Left obsessed with Israel and the Jews? How you posted on any other cases of ethnic cleansing or is your special interest the Jews, as it was for the Nazis?

          So you think the ‘Zionists’ are controlling what I and other think and write; just as the Nazis thought about the Jews – exactly the same thing. You people think exactly the same kinds of the things as the Nazis only that you substitute ‘Jew’ and put ‘Zionist’ in its place.

          Incidentally, the Nazis here in the UK also use the word ‘Zionist’ more than ‘Jew’ nowadays – they’ve learned a lot from the Left. That is, the National Socialists, with a history of Jew-hatred which goes back to the 1920s, have learned from the International Socialists, with a history of Jew-hatred which goes back to Marx (yes, I know he was Jewish). Unless you are a Nazi because it’s often very hard to tell the difference, after all Leftists and Nazis are totalitarian, they both hate (Jewish?) capitalism, the promise Utopia, class equality, state collectivism, numerous conspiracy theories about Jews and other things (often the same ones)… You are
          the same people.

        • JoJoJams

          “de facto ethnic cleansing” –
          Hilarious when anti-semites make that claim. The original 600,000 displaced arabic descendents in Palestine have grown to many many millions! The jews definitely do suck at “genocide”! lmao!

          • muchiboy

            No,they don’t suck.It worked for the Jews,they are a majority in what was once an overwhelmingly Arab,(Christian and Muslim) Palestine.The South Africans,Rhodesians,etc.can’t say that.To your eternal shame,you can.Don’t sell yourself short.

          • defcon 4

            Christians are an ever shrinking minority throughout the Mid-East and N. Africa. And some of them preferred to be called Assyrian dirtbag, not ARABIC.

          • Smoking Hamster

            Can you please shut the hell up about Christians? You Muslims are a close second to Communism as far as persecuting Christians goes. I would much rather live as a Christian in Jew dominated Israel than some Muslim dominated hellhole like Palestine.

            Look at Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has been responsible for the most hostile environment for religious minorities in generations.

          • Smoking Hamster

            Can you please shut up about Christians? You Muslims are a close second to Communism as far as persecuting Christians goes. I would much rather live as a Christian in Jew dominated Israel than some Muslim dominated dystopia like Palestine.

            Look at Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has been responsible for the most hostile environment for religious minorities in generations

          • JoJoJams

            You don’t comprehend what “genocide” means, do you? And at least you admit Palestine was comprised of….Arabs. Invaders from Saudi Arabia. Anyhow, the demographics doesn’t matter, in that of course Israel is comprised of a majority of Jews. That’s what it was re-created for, after all! And the arabic palestinians have only grown in population themselves. If there were a genocide, they would be decreasing in numbers. There is no genocide. The real genocides going on in this world today is in all the MUSLIM majority nations, and their genocide of all other peoples and religions. But let’s not let reality get in the way of your intolerance and dogma.

        • Drakken

          If you openly side with the Islamic savages, that makes you an enemy collaborator. Deo Volente and God Bless the Crusades!

      • defcon 4

        By now I’m sure the number of Jews ethnically cleansed from the Mid-East and N. Africa (e.g. Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq) through islam0nazi persecution has hit a million.

    • gray_man

      “Crusaders and Jihadists have much in common”. Nonsense, Crusades were defensive in nature, Jihad is offensive in nature.

      Why would Zionist “return” to Europe, they are not from there.
      Imbecilic nonsense.

      • m4253y

        he is so stupid that he warrants no reply. let him slide back under that rock only to reveal his trail of slime.

      • muchiboy

        Zionists not from Europe? Didn’t Zionism have it’s roots in Europe? I recall a passage in Golda Meir’s autobiography where she refers to the working language of the early Israel as Yiddish.

        • defcon 4

          LOL? Who built Jerusalem? The Arabic muslimes? Who built the Temple Mount. Your obvious intelligence and historical knowledge are to be admired — LOL.

        • gray_man

          Jews are Zionists. Jews are not from Europe.
          Have you ever heard of the Old Testament?
          Try reading it sometime.

        • Drakken

          You might have sympathy for those arab savages, I don’t, effem, let them rot in the own jihad and I do hope the jews quit screwing around with a bunch of savages that want them dead.

    • glpage

      A while back someone tested the DNA of Current day Israelis descended from the Jews who settled in Judea in the late 1800s through the end of WW2. Their DNA was compared to the few Jews who remained in the Middle East. They were related. The Zionists, as you call them, were just folks returning to their homeland.

      Another little known, or perhaps more accurately ignored, piece of info is that much of the land that comprises modern day Israel was bought from Arab landowners who felt the crappy chunk of desert wasn’t worth anything. These Arabs thought they were getting the best of the Jews by demanding what they thought were outrageous prices for that land. The the Jews actually turned it into something worthwhile.

      • defcon 4

        I remember reading in Chaim Herzog’s book about the Arab-Israeli wars that in ’48′ the muslimes were selling their properties to Jews in anticipation of the fact that they would get their properties back after the muslime armies had pushed the Jews into the sea.

        • Smoking Hamster

          Whoops…

      • muchiboy

        They were related,were they? It might surprise you to hear that we are all related,and more the same than different.After all,aren’t we all God’s children.
        I really have no objection to Jews,wherever they were from,returning to their homeland,even after some hundreds or thousands of years,especially given their need for Sanctuary when threatened with genocide in Europe.But not at the expense of the Palestinian People,who were displaced (by the mostly European Diaspora) and denied (by the Jewish state) their similar right of return,even if it were only after sixty-something years.

        • Drakken

          Your muslim friends lost the wars they started, to the victors go the spoils.

      • frjohnmorris

        A study of my DNA will show that my people came from the British Isles, but I do not have a right to go there and demand that the people living there now give me their lands and homes. Just because Jews lived in Palestine 2,000 years ago does not give them the right to go there under the protection of the British Mandate and establish a state that treats the people living there as second class citizens.

        • glpage

          It appears you missed the part of my post that stated that the Jews bought most of what is now Israel from the Arabs who owned the land back when. When you own the land you pretty much should have the right to do with it what you want.

          Most of the Muslims living in Judea back when were nomadic and came from surrounding countries, especially after the Jews made Judea productive again and needed workers. The Palestinians are a made up peoples, most people considered Palestinian today have their roots in Egypt, Syria, Jordan. They left Israel before the surrounding Muslim nations attacked Israel in 1948 at the behest of those nations; the attackers didn’t want the Muslims in the way when they overran Israel. Unfortunately, if didn’t work out that way for the Muslims. The plight of the so-called Palestinians is due much more to the crappy treatment they have received from their co-religionists since 1948 than the Israelis.

          As far as Israel treating them as second class citizens, the non-Jews in Israel have life better there than they would elsewhere in the Middle East and substantially better than non-Muslims have in the surrounding Muslim countries.

        • defcon 4

          Just because the islam0nazi apes invaded and colonized Israel successfully doesn’t mean they EVER had the right to it — especially after three invasions of Israel and endless islam0nazi terror attacks.

          • frjohnmorris

            If anyone needed proof of the basic racist nature of the Pro Zionist movement all one has to do is read your posts. The Palestinian people were neither Nazis nor were they Apes. Nor are all of them Muslim. Many Palestinians are Christians. European and American Jews are the real invaders who took advantage of the British Mandate to occupy Arab lands. Just because someone’s ancestors lived somewhere 2,000 years ago does not give their descendents the right to go there in modern times and displace the people living there now and establish a state ran by the immigrants which treats the native people as inferiors, yet that is exactly what has happened to the Palestinian people in their historic homeland. It is their historic homeland because they have live there for centuries. I would not have the right to go to Wales and claim the right to live there just because my ancestors came to American from Wales 400 years ago.

          • Drakken

            It look like your an inbred arab and openly sides with your oppressors, I have zero sympathy with Islamic collaborators. You and your kind deserve their fate.

          • frjohnmorris

            My family came to Jamestown from Wales in 1619. I am pure 100% American. I am not an Islamic collaborators. Have you not read my condemnation of the Obama administration for supporting the Muslim radicals in Syria. I am a Christian and oppose persecution of Christians where ever it happens. Both the Muslim radicals and the Zionists have persecuted Arab Christians.

          • Drakken

            There ya go again blaming the jews for the Islamic problem. Nice job dhimmi.

          • frjohnmorris

            It is a fact that the Zionists persecute Palestinian Christians. Ultra Orthodox Jews spit upon Orthodox clergy in Jerusalem and jeer and harass Christian religious processions in the holy city. Muslims also persecute Christians.

          • Drakken

            The worst thing one of those orthodox jews do is spit on you, the muslims just slaughter you, maybe you orthodox folks should have a little more backbone huh padre.

          • defcon 4

            He’s no dhimmi, he’s a true believer, but not in Christianity.

          • dartson

            Well, Spaniards liberated their ancestral land from the Muslim invaders after 800 years of Muslim occupation, Russians liberated their land from Tatar-Mongol occupants after 300 years of occupation, Sicilians took back their lands from Muslim invaders, East Timorese Christians got their freedom from Indonesian Muslim occupiers. So why is it that only Jews are condemned for liberating their ancestral lands from 2,000 years of foreign occupation? Why all the other people I mentioned are not required to return their lands to “the native people”?

          • frjohnmorris

            The situation is completely different in each case that you described. The Spanish, Russians and Sicilians still lived in their native lands and were dominated by foreign powers. The Zionists are the foreign invaders and the Palestinians the native people of the Holy Land.

          • Drakken

            Well if that is the case, then I should be able to get all of my lands and estates back in East Prussia. Not going to happen.

          • frjohnmorris

            No it is not. You then should understand that the Jews cannot legitimately claim ownership of Palestine because their ancestors once lived there. The East Prussians were only driven out after the Second World War and they are not going to get Konisberg back.

          • Drakken

            Just as your pali friends are never ever going to get their own state.

          • defcon 4

            “many” palesimians are Christians? Really? Many being a shrinking minority who are treated like slaves by their islam0nazi masters.

          • frjohnmorris

            Have you ever actually spoken with a Palestinian Christian and given them a fair hearing. I suspect not because you are so filled with hatred towards all things Arab. Until you have heard their side of the story all you are doing is repeating Zionist propaganda.

    • Drakken

      Don’t worry, your favorite koranimals the fakestinians will push their own demise with our hearty good riddance soon enough, think Carthage, as to the other islamaniancs in our western midst, we will tire sooner or later of their jihad against us and our vengeance will be the stuff of legend sung around a thousand campfires for a thousand years.

  • DVult

    The only thing wrong with the crusades is that they didn’t finish the job.

    • Drakken

      Well with the way things are going, we are going to have another Crusades soon enough.

      • Texas Patriot

        There is a better way, Drakken. All the West needs to do is outlaw Islam like the Muslim Brotherhood is being outlawed in Egypt, and give Israel the green light to confiscate the lands from all those who attack her from outside her borders. Muslims will flee back to the middle east to defend all the”Muslim lands” that Israel will be confiscating, and that will basically be that.

        If you were hoping for a massive bloodbath requiring the slaughter of hundreds of millions of Muslims in the West, I’m afraid you will be disappointed. Those that renounce Islam will be permitted to stay. Those that prefer a life of jihad will have all the fighting they want in the middle east. Of course if you want to get in on the fighting, you could always emigrate to Israel. There will be plenty of fighting there from now on for the foreseeable future. Then again, Israel is more than capable of defending herself, and with her newly acquired territories, she will be able to form a perfect “buffer” between the perpetually warring Shia to the north and the perpetually warring Sunni to the south.

        Sooner or later, maybe the Muslims will get tired of fighting. Who knows. Until then, you’re sure to have all you want.

        • Drakken

          It is not a fact that I am hoping for a bloodbath, it is a fact we westerners will be forced to do so. No matter how you look at it, our appeasement of Islamic aggression only invites more aggression against us, it will be met sooner or later with what I call the Serb Option. We are way beyond the point of sending the muslims back, they will be fleeing for their lives from the coming purge. It is inevitable whether I like it or not.

          • Texas Patriot

            Two things will cause Muslims to leave the West. First, the practice of their their murderous ideology will be outlawed. And second, Israel will no longer tolerate attacks from Islamic jihadists, but instead will begin confiscating the land and expelling the attackers from it. Faced with this reality, Muslims from all over Europe and America will move back to the middle east in droves. No need for bloodshed here. Muslims came freely, and they will be permitted to leave freely.

          • Drakken

            This ends only one way, massive bloodshed period, any other way is wishful thinking, and deep down you know this is true.

          • Texas Patriot

            Hopefully Muslims will be wise enough to realize that they have no chance of conquering the West, and their only chance of surviving is to leave peacefully while they still can. If they are willing to leave peacefully, we should let them leave peacefully. It is the only civilized thing to do.

          • Drakken

            Dealing with uncivilized savages by civilized means is suicide.

          • Texas Patriot

            Muslims are perfectly capable of acting in a rational way if their choices are clear. If Islam is outlawed in the West, they will leave.

          • Drakken

            I wish you were right, unfortunately history has proved you wrong.

          • defcon 4

            When have muslimes ever been peaceful?

          • Fauzan Auburn

            Then stop coming to other peoples country. Stop nosing around. Stop ‘invading’ or threatening people from other country. You come to someonelses country and of cause the citizens will fight back cause its their home. When you come to someones country and cause fear, you are the terrorist.

          • Texas Patriot

            FA: Then stop coming to other peoples country. Stop nosing around. Stop ‘invading’ or threatening people from other country. You come to someonelses country and of cause the citizens will fight back cause its their home. When you come to someones country and cause fear, you are the terrorist.

            I don’t have a problem with that, but it works both ways. As Rudyard Kipling once said:

            Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

            I think the East and West have much to learn from one another, but I don’t think it is realistic that we will ever assimilate with one another. Fortunately, with the miracle of internet communications, it is now possible to learn from foreign cultures without ever going there.

          • defcon 4

            Eh? Small problem, most muslimes don’t COME from the Middle East.

          • jaybird1951

            You have a point. In Britain they come mostly from south Asia. In France from the Maghreb. In Germany from Turkey.

        • muchiboy

          Israel and her Arab neighbors,Palestinians,(Christian and Muslim) included, have lost enough young men over the decades.A qualified single state with international guarantees may satisfy all necessary and sufficient conditions for peace among the Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.As was shown by the early reverses suffered by the IDF in the Yom Kippur War,without American military support Israel may again be at risk given outside influences and regional conditions.Israel needs regional friends and allies.After all,it is a dangerous neighborhood and likely will be for some time.God Bless the Jewish and Palestinian Peoples.

          • defcon 4

            Duh, Christian palesimians are fast disappearing from the Mid-East and it isn’t because of Israel, Jews or Zionists.

          • Drakken

            Screw the pali savages, they have done nothing for peace, they have pushed for the total extermination of the jews and frankly I hope the Israeli’s quit screwing around with them and give them what they so richly deserve, a taste of Carthage with the added flavor of a Sherman’s March to the Sea.

    • JoFro

      That is because the Crusades were never launched to finish off Islam – remember that they were launched to protect Christian pilgrim routes and help the Byzantines recover lands they had lost to Islamic Turk invaders. The idea of fighting the Islamic religion or converting the Muslim peoples wasn’t on the radar, at least not on the first or second Crusades!

      • frjohnmorris

        Instead of returning the lands to the Byzantine Empire, the Crusades set up principalities and kingdoms for themselves and tried to force the Eastern Christians to submit to papal domination. That is historic fact that is undisputed.

        • RonMar

          So what? You know there is gross confusion, lack of information and conflicting story lines about your cult, and you are doing nothing to set any record straight.
          You title like Catholics. You refuse to answer easy questions about your beliefs and practices, and you have come across strongly in your posts here as if you are an Islamic, certainly an aider, abetter, apologist and supporter of Islamic jihadists.
          Do you consider yourself a Catholic, Christian, Islamist, Pagan or what?

          • frjohnmorris

            I am an Antiochian Orthodox Christian which is a part of the world wide Eastern Orthodox Church with over 300 million members. The Orthodox Church is not a cult. It is the original Christian Church and was founded by the Apostles. it is also the indigenous Christian Church among Arab speaking Christians. I will be more than happy to answer any question that you have about our beliefs and practices. Thus far you have asked none, so it is unfair of you to accuse me of refusing to answer easy questions about my Orthodox Faith. If you think that I am an Islamists you have not read my posts. I have repeatedly expressed my anger that the Obama administration is supporting the pro-islamist in Syria. The rebels supported by Obama have declared that their goal is to turn Syria into an Isamic state governed by Sharia Law. Remember in Egypt Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

          • RonMar

            “I will be more than happy to answer any question that you have about our beliefs and practices.” – No you won’t. You have in fact refused to answer the questions I have asked you, for example, about the origin of the use of the word “Palestine,” Arafat’s refusal to form a Palestine pursuant to UN Resolution 181, whether or not your cult’s primary worship day is the true Sabbath or not – the Catholic-imposed one without a shred of Biblical support, your cult’s evangelism practices, if any, in keeping with Matt. 28:18:20, etc.
            I have read your vile, evil, hate-filled posts against Israel, Israelis, especially the Jews, and in favor of Islamic jihadists.
            For you to say all you have said so far to which I am responding reveals you again as a liar, mental incompetent or both, take you choice.
            I don’t need you or any dimwit, arrogant and ignorant twit like you trying to tell me about Obama, Islam or anything else regarding the region, or for that matter the world. You especially have proven the depth and width of your ignorance are exceeded only by your arrogance.

          • frjohnmorris

            It should not take a lot of common sense to recognize that the word Palestinian came from the name of the original inhabitants of The Holy Land, the Philistines. The ancient Egyptians called the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea south of Syria and
            Lebanon Palestine. The Greek historian Herodotus
            called the area Palestine. Most importantly the Bible calls the original inhabitants of the Holy Land Philistines 263 times. After the Bar Kohba Revolt in 135 AD the Romans combined Judea and Galilee and renamed the area Syria Palestine. During the Byzantine era Judea, Galilee and Samaria were called Palestine. It was an administrative
            province under the Muslim Caliphate. The area was called Palestine long before it was called Israel. The Palestinians are the descendents of the people who have lived there since pre-Biblical times. For that reason, they have more right to be there than European or American Jews. Since the state of Israel is a fact of history, I still favor the two state solution. So do not accuse me of
            advocating the expulsion of the Jews, because I do no. I do, however, believe that the Jews should get out of the Occupied Territories and go back to the pre 1967 borders.
            You gave yourself away with your criticism of worship on Sunday. I always though that your claims to be a Christian are fake. That proves it. You are either a member of a fringe group far outside of mainstream Christianity, or you are not a true Christian, because all Christians have held their primary service of worship on Sunday since Apostolic times because Christ rose from the dead on Sunday. Pentecost also took place on a Sunday. Acts 20:17 reports that the Apostolic Church gathered for the Eucharist on “the first day of the week.” We know from the writings of the Fathers that the ancient Church continued the Apostolic practice of gathering for the weekly Eucharist on Sunday. In the languages of Orthodox lands like Greece then name for Sunday
            means The Lord’s Day. Even the Soviets were unable to change the name of Sunday from The Day of the Resurrection.

          • RonMar

            You have stepped off the cliff now and fallen into the abyss proving you are a fraud. I don’t know who or what you are, but I know for sure you are no academic, historian or Christian.

            The word Palestine absolutely 100% did not come from Philistine and every Bible scholar and historian of the time knows better than that claptrap you deposited.

            You may try again to answer my question, I don’t expect any better result from someone as arrogant and ignorant as you so obviously are.
            The two-state solution is a total, 100% complete impossibility as long as Hamas in the Gaza Strip and other Islamic jihadists – the “Palestinian” Authority and PLO holdovers – are at each other’s throats over leadership and at the same time intent on the destruction of Israel and murder of all Jews. Only a three-state solution is possible. You are too dumb and rigid apparently to understand that is the case and that there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. While you were sleeping the situation changed dramatically from 2005-2007 and remains so.
            You are so obviously anti-Israel, Jewish, and pro-Arab Muslim, Islamic jihadist it is painful to read your garbage continuing in to spew Islamic jihadist propaganda lies so transparent anyone with a brain functioning above reptilian level can see through them.
            I did not give myself away with anything. I am a Christian whose primary worship day of our Lord is on the Sabbath – Saturday – sunset Friday-sunset Saturday. Anyone claiming to be a Christian who does not worship on the Sabbath has followed the Catholic dogma and is outside the clear teachings of the Bible. The Sabbath is Saturday, and there is nothing you or any other heretics can do about it. It is a God thing set from the Creation.
            This is a lie – “all Christians
            have held their primary service of worship on Sunday since Apostolic
            times ….” The Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday by the Catholic Church, and there is no, absolutely zero, Biblical support for it.
            You have again proven yourself to be a fraud because you don’t know the first thing about the truths of the Bible or the issues involved in the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday.
            You lose again, johnny, a big-time and huge habit for you, soon to have horrendous impact on you and others you have led astray in your arrogance, ignorance and blatant lying.

          • frjohnmorris

            Just that argument shows that you know nothing about the history of the Christian Church. Christians have gathered for the Eucharist on the first day of the Week, Sunday since Apostolic times. Acts 20:7,
            “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to
            break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next
            day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.” The phrase break bread refers to the Eucharist the primary act of Christian worship. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third Bishop of Antioch and successor to St. Peter wrote, “Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e., Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death (Letter to the
            Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]

            I could quote from other Fathers, but the quote from Acts and St. Ignatius are enough to show that the ancient Apostolic Church worshiped on Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection of Christ on Sunday. It is just as I thought you are a member of a fringe group with no connection with the Apostolic Church. You also know nothing about the history of the Middle East. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I find you bigotry against the Roman Catholic Church offensive. For the first 1,000 years of Christian history the Roman Catholic Church was united with the Orthodox Church. The standard for the correct Christian Faith is the Bible as interpreted by the consensus of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils not the ravings of a self proclaimed expert like yourself. I am a real priest in a real Church under a Bishop who is under a Metropolitan who is under the Patriarch of Antioch, the successor to Sts. Peter and Paul the founders of the Church of Antioch. My academic credentials are also real. Here is my biography from the Amazon listing of my latest book The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History.

            Archpriest John W. Morris, is the relgious title for Warren B.
            Morris, Jr. Fr. John received a MTS degree from Holy Cross Greek
            Orthodox School of theology, and has been an Antiochian Orthodox Priest
            for over thirty years. He is now Pastor of St. George’s Antiochian
            Orthodox Church in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Before entering seminary, he
            earned a Ph.D. in history at Oklahoma State University, and studied at
            Goethe Univeristy in Frankfurt, Germany, as a Fulbright Scholar. In
            addition to his pastoral duties, he has taught history courses at
            several colleges and universities including Indiana University Purdue
            University at Fort Wayne, Kent State at Stark County, Southwestern
            University, and Kirkwood Community College. He has taught courses in
            Christian history at Marshall University, Malone College, and for the
            Roman Catholic Diocese of Shreveport. He has written many articles and
            five other books dealing with German history and theological issues.

          • RonMar

            Typical of you, johnny, that is a long load of claptrap that avoids my challenge to you entirely: Show me in the Bible, Book, Chapter and Verse(s) where the Sabbath was changed by the authority of God from Saturday – the day on which He rested after His work of Creation – to Sunday.
            Failing that, which you will, post some brief truth about who changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, when, where, how and, if possible to know, why.

        • JoFro

          That was because of the treachery of the Byzantine Emperor – the guy made deals with his Muslim enemies while the Crusaders were out there losing life and limb for him. It was the hell of Byzantine politics that finally got the Crusaders angry enough with the Emperor that they decided better that they run the lands they fought for rather than let him and his bureaucrats run the place.

          Perhaps had the Byzantines not decided to play around with the lives of men they had asked the Pope to send, the Crusaders would very likely have fought under the Emperor.

          But the Emperor didn’t and well, we got the Latin states!

  • Demetrius Minneapolis

    There were multiple crusades so one has to specify what time period we are discussing, unless this book is a broad view of all. Each Crusade had it’s own triumphs, defeats and cast of characters. There are books out there that are written to specific Crusade periods that are highly detailed and fairly balanced, one just needs to search.

  • JoeThePimpernel

    Why We Are Afraid (of Moslems), A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&feature=player_embedded

  • Texas Patriot

    It’s obvious why the West gets the blame for the Crusades. We didn’t eliminate Islam. It would be like America fighting WWII and not eliminating the Nazis. We didn’t win, so of course we get the blame.

  • trapper

    I am proud of our Christian Crusader history. European Christiandom raised armies to free its lands that had been conquered and to defend its people against a barbaric, vicious, and persecuting force. Remember the First Crusade was in response to the Islamic slaughter of thousands of innocent and spiritual Christian pilgrims who only wanted to visit their religious homeland.

    • Texas Patriot

      Being proud of the Crusades is like being proud of Vietnam. We didn’t fight to win, and we lost the war at a great sacrifice of precious American blood and treasure and prestige. Losing the Crusades was even worse.

      • Smoking Hamster

        Hey, I’m proud of Vietnam. We slowed down the advance of Communism and millions got to live longer in their homeland as a result.

        if urge Democrats hadn’t have defunded the south after Watergate even more would have been saved.

        • Texas Patriot

          Being proud of Vietnam and the Crusades is fine. Lots of people are proud of noble and well-intentioned failures that are extremely costly in terms of blood, treasure, and prestige. Just don’t confuse it with winning.

          Barry Goldwater was right. We could have won the Vietnam war in three months, max. Vietnam was a third world country that had no chance against the combined military might of the United States of America. But of course the United States of America was never really at war with N. Vietnam. As you suggest, t was only a “police action” run by politicians with their own political agendas and political objectives that had little or nothing to do with the national security interests of the American people.

          Muslims are under no such illusion about their war with the West. They know very well that Muhammad’s war with non-Muslims is a war to the death, and they will stop at nothing short of total victory.

          • Drakken

            Muslims will sooner or later push us to unleash that time honored western tradition of conquer and kill and let allah sortem out.

          • Texas Patriot

            I hope not. I’d much rather just outlaw Islam, and let them all go back to the middle east. Then they can carry on all the jihad they want. Israel can handle it, and it just makes all kinds of sense historically. It’s really not our fight.

          • Drakken

            Too late to outlaw islam, it will have to dealt with the old fashioned way.

          • Texas Patriot

            Not too late at all. The West is only beginning to wake up to the actual contents of the ideology of conquest and submission contained in the Koran. Muslims came here under the false pretenses of being a “religion of peace”. Now that we have discovered the nature of the ruse, we can all have a good laugh and let them leave. Not a problem.

          • Drakken

            You know darn well that this does not end well. Islam can only be dealt with in their own bloody coin.

          • Texas Patriot

            If they want to leave peacefully, we should let them leave peacefully.

          • Drakken

            Never let your enemy retreat to fight another day, better to utterly destroy them and call it a day. It saves blood and treasure.

          • Texas Patriot

            If you want to get in on the killing, just emigrate to Israel. There will be plenty of fighting for you there. As far as I’m concerned, the whole thing is a big joke on the ignorance and stupidity of the West. Okay, they fooled us. They made us believe that Islam is a “religion of peace”. Now we get it. The joke is on us. Fine. But there is no need to soil our hands with their blood if we don’t have to. If they want to leave peacefully, let them leave peacefully.

          • Drakken

            I work in the middle and far east and North Africa. If you think for one moment that this can be solved in a civilized manner, without a massive purge. you are either deluded or living in lala land.

          • Texas Patriot

            I don’t think so. Muslims who are willing to renounce Islam should be permitted to stay in the West. Those who wish to continue to practice the murderous ideology commanded by Muhammad in the Koran should be required to leave. It will be a “purge” of sorts, but an ideological one and not necessarily a bloody one. If Muslims want to shed blood, they can shed each other’s blood in the middle east. We want nothing to do with that sort of thing in the West, and if there is any way we can avoid it, we will. But leave they must, and leave they will one way or another. Hopefully by their own choice. All we have to do is make the choice very clear. You will see.

          • Drakken

            Unfortunately, in your thought process, you fail to realize that they are here in massive numbers and they are bringing their 3rd world ways with them, so we are way beyond the point of giving them the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions. There are too many of them, especially in Europe, to throw them out without bankrupting our countries, and they certainly aren’t going to go without a fight and too many bleeding heart leftist to defend them. This will be a Balkans on steroids.

          • Texas Patriot

            There is no doubt about their intentions. By and large, Muslims came here under the false pretense that Islam is a “religion of peace”. Now we know that it is not a religion of peace but rather a “religion of conquest” with a goal of global domination and the imposition of Sharia law on all the people of the world. This is in its “constitution”, the Koran, and it is unchanging. And of course it is completely incompatible with Western values of Individual Freedom and Constitutional Democracy. So now that we realize that we have been deceived, what do we do?

            The only civilized thing to do is to give all Muslims now living in the West an opportunity to renounce Islam and embrace the values of the West where they have chosen to live. Those who are willing to do so publicly, before all the world, should be protected from revenge attacks by angry Muslims, like all other Westerners. And those who refuse to renounce the murderous and totalitarian edicts of the Koran should be outlawed and asked to leave. The Spanish faced the same situation after the Reconquista. Most Muslims rejected Islam and decided to stay in Spain, and the result is one of the most complex and interesting Christian societies in the world today. The same thing can happen in Europe and America.

            We just need to be willing to face the truth about the fraudulent invasion that has befallen us. It is very much like the Trojan Horse of the Odyssey, except that the numbers are much larger. So what? We can deal with the numbers, and the Muslims who want to stay and participate in our society based on Individual Freedom and Constitutional Democracy should be permitted to do so. It can work, and I think it will work if we give it a chance.

          • defcon 4

            Considering the fact that islam advocates dishonesty, how can you trust that a muslim who renounces islam, has, in fact done so?

          • Texas Patriot

            Because anyone who renounces Islam immediately calls down upon himself or herself a death sentence for apostasy that could theoretically be carried out by any one of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims in the name of jihad. Thus the public act of renouncing Islam is one of the most courageous and righteous things a person can do, and those who do it deserve our respect and protection. Those who refuse should be given an option. Organize your affairs, and leave the country in one month. Or come with us to the border immediately.

          • Drakken

            Your wishful thinking is going to cost a lot of lives when history has proved your theory completely wrong.

          • frjohnmorris

            Muslims have a guaranteed right to practice their religion in this country as long as they do not support the radicals. Most American Muslims are no problem or threat to our freedom. In Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine Christians and Muslims have lived together in peace for centuries. Before the recent troubles, Syria was a shining example of Christians and Muslims living together in peace because Assad kept the radical Islamist under control. Not all Muslims are radicals. Yes, we must control the radicals, but we must also recognize the freedom of religion for peaceful Muslims and their right to practice their faith as long as they accept the right of others to practice their faith.

          • Texas Patriot

            “Muslims have a guaranteed right to practice their religion in this country as long as they do not support the radicals.”

            The radicals are the ones who follow the teachings of Muhammad as set forth in the Koran. Are you saying that Muslims have a right to practice their religion so long as they do not follow the teachings of the Koran?

          • frjohnmorris

            Have you ever read the Koran? It is not arranged systematical. It contradicts itself. In some suras it calls for religious toleration. In others it calls for military conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: “Have you ever read the Koran? It is not arranged systematical. It contradicts itself. In some suras it calls for religious toleration. In others it calls for military conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.”

            That’s an interesting question. As I understand it, Muslims believe that the Koran was dictated to Muhammad by God himself and that Muhammad was really acting in the role of a scrivener taking dictation. If that is the case, shouldn’t we have some information about the original? As far as I can tell, no one knows what happened to it, and there is quite a bit of dispute about the contents of the document that has actually come down to us. Some say that the Koran is to be read progressively, i.e. that the later verses are more authoritative than the earlier verses. Unfortunately it would appear that it is the later verses which call for the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims. Are you suggesting that we should “sanitize” the Koran and tell Muslims which verses they can follow and which ones they can’t?

          • frjohnmorris

            The Quran was compiled at the order of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, and complied from notes taken from Muhammad’s teachings by Zayd ibid Thabit who died in 665. The Quran is organized by size of the chapters called Suras with from the longest to the shortest.

            You are right, Islam teaches that Muslims should conquer and subjugate non-Muslims. In addition to the Quran there is Sharia Law that institutionalizes a status of inferiority for non Muslims. I greatly admire Arab Christians because they have remained faithful despite centuries of Islamic persecution.

            I am not suggesting that we do anything to the Quran. I am suggesting that anyone who immigrates to the US must adapt to our culture which includes religious toleration and secular American law , not Sharia law. If a Muslim cannot accept that principle, there are plenty of Muslim countries they can go to. Most American Muslims seem to have accepted the American principle of religious toleration. If most had not we would have a real crisis here because there are a few million Muslims in the US.
            Not all Muslims are radicals. Even in Syria the real radicals are not Syrians, but outsiders who are flowing into Syria to help turn Syria into an Islamic state. I have heard that it was Chechins who kidnapped the two Orthodox Bishops in Aleppo. Rumor has it that When the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan John refused to renounce Christ and embrace Islam, they shot him.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris; “Most American Muslims seem to have accepted the American principle of religious toleration. If most had not we would have a real crisis here because there are a few million Muslims in the US.”

            I’ve read that the number is closer to 7 million and that the Muslim population in America has increased by 74% since 9/11/2001. In that regard, the Boston Massacre where two “lone wolf” Muslims staged a jihad attack against a totally unsuspecting American civilians on Patriots day was notable for the fact that it was highly criticized by radical Muslims, not because it was a crime against humanity, but because of the fear that it would frustrate their plans to move even larger numbers of Muslims into America.

            The truth of the matter is that Muslims are very, very intelligent, they take their mission of global conquest very, very seriously, and they are taught by the Koran to be very, very patient. If it takes them several hundred years to expand their power base in a non-Muslim country, they are perfectly willing to be loyal, law-abiding citizens of that country until they are in position to exercise more political authority. Unfortunately, as we are beginning to see in various parts of Europe where Muslims are approaching a majority, that’s when things begin to change, and that’s when we begin to see the true face of Islam.

            It’s hard to blame Muslims for wanting to conquer and subjugate all the people of the world in the name of Islam, if they truly believe that the Koran is the word of God. What is even harder to do, however, is to engage in the self-deception of pretending that that radical Muslims are not precisely following the teachings of the Koran, when it is perfectly obvious that they are.

          • frjohnmorris

            I understand all of that. We must be careful who we let into our country and monitor Islamic radicalism to prevent its growth in the U.S. If American Muslims do not honor our tradition of religious liberty for all, they must be crushed. Any Muslim cleric who preaches jihad should be either deported or thrown in prison for treason. However, as long as Muslims live in peace and do not threaten our freedom they should be left alone and their religious freedom honored. it is possible that an American form of moderate Islam will evolve that will not be a threat to anyone. Islam is not monolithic any more than Christianity is monolithic. However, why does the Obama administration support Islamic rebels in Syria who are killing and persecuting Christians. I find it difficult to believe that it is worse to use gas to kill people than to machine gun them or cut off their heads. Take some time and see what the rebels are doing to the Christians in Syria and you will see how misguided Obama’s policies are. it is insane for the US to support the take over of Syria of a group heavily infiltrated by radical Muslims with ties to Al Qaeda, but that is exactly what Obama is doing.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: “[I]t is possible that an American form of moderate Islam will evolve that will not be a threat to anyone.”

            If a moderate form of Islam was going to evolve in America, it would have done so by now, and American Muslims would be aggressively pursing radical Muslims and turning them into the authorities for prosecution, in much the same way as Christians aggressively participated in the dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan. Unfortunately, that isn’t happening. Why? Unlike the situation with the Klan where the so-called Christian Klansmen were acting directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, in the case of Muslim atrocities, it is the radical Muslims who are acting in accordance with the teachings of Muhammad, and the moderate Muslims really have no theological basis to object.

            frjohnmorris: “However, why does the Obama administration support Islamic rebels in Syria who are killing and persecuting Christians. I find it difficult to believe that it is worse to use gas to kill people than to machine gun them or cut off their heads. Take some time and see what the rebels are doing to the Christians in Syria and you will see how misguided Obama’s policies are. it is insane for the US to support the take over of Syria of a group heavily infiltrated by radical Muslims with ties to Al Qaeda, but that is exactly what Obama is doing.”

            I couldn’t possibly agree with you any more. Our policy in Syria seems absolutely nuts.

          • frjohnmorris

            Obviously if the American Muslims cause problems by supporting Jihad here, we will have to deal with them with all the force of the law.
            I do agree that the press and political correctness is preventing us from recognizing the threat of Islam. The term Islaphobia is offensive because a phobia is an irrational fear. It is not irrational to fear radical Islam.

            My chief worry is that we are in a spiritual war, and that we as a nation are not spiritually prepared for it because our society has become so secularized and anti-Christian.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: “My chief worry is that we are in a spiritual war, and that we as a nation are not spiritually prepared for it because our society has become so secularized and anti-Christian.”

            It is first and foremost a spiritual war, and we are indeed totally unprepared for it. Unfortunately, Christian Churches historically and even today, have had almost no clue what Jesus Christ was trying to say, and I think if Jesus were here today he would wholeheartedly agree.

            The truth is that the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ are unlike anything in the history of the world, and they are very difficult to grasp even for the most learned professors and clerics. His doctrine of love for neighbors (and especially enemies) is beyond anything anyone has ever taught in any religion, and it has no doubt been virtually incomprehensible even to Christians who have spent their lives trying to plumb the depths of his meaning.

            Yes, the crisis we face is a spiritual one more than anything else, and seeking to understand and practice the authentic teachings of Jesus Christ and building up the authentic Church of Jesus Christ in accordance with the meaning of those teachings may be the only hope of stopping the Islamic tsunami now sweeping the earth. Any thoughts on how we might go about doing that?

          • frjohnmorris

            All that any of us can do is work on our own spirituality and hope and pray that America will come to it senses and repent before it is too late. Our secular society is dysfunctional and crumbling.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: “All that any of us can do is work on our own spirituality and hope and pray that America will come to it senses and repent before it is too late. Our secular society is dysfunctional and crumbling.”

            Very true.

          • Drakken

            Speaking of PC, your advocating it in spades, islam is islam, there is no such thing as radical islam. Islam contradicts our western values and way of life.

          • frjohnmorris

            I am anything but PC. I know more than you how oppressive Islam can be because I have spent my adult life among Arab Christians. It is possible for Muslims and Christians to live together in peace and mutual respect. It is quite common in Syria for Muslim women to bring their babies to receive a blessing from a Greek Orthodox Priest. Muslims visit the shrine of Our Lady of Saidnaya near Damascus. There are also radical Muslims who must be kept under control. That is why democracy will not work in the Muslim world.

          • Drakken

            And that is why islam must be eradicated as a direct threat to our western way of life.

          • frjohnmorris

            You cannot eradicate Islam. You can only contain it and keep it from spreading. The place to start is preventing an Islamic take over of Syria, but our government is supporting the Islamists.

          • Drakken

            Sure we can, it just takes the force of will and the means to do so.

          • frjohnmorris

            Even the United States cannot conquer the Muslim world. The best that we can do is contain the expansion of Islamic terrorism.

          • Drakken

            No need to conquer it, just lay waste to it so that islam is no longer threat.

          • defcon 4

            If a “moderate” form of islam were to evolve you would think after FOURTEEN HUNDRED YEARS it would be here already.

          • Texas Patriot

            The idea of a “moderate” form of any religion is a little difficult to fathom. Each religion is a set of essential beliefs and practices that must be considered in their entirety, and each is designed to produce a particular result for God, for practitioners, and for the world.

            It is really difficult to think about leaving out any essential belief or practice without changing the entire religion. In a way, each religion is like a mathematical equation. If you change the equation, you necessarily change the result.

            Jesus told us this, “If you keep my commands, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”. Which one of Jesus commands do we suppose we could leave out and still get the promised result?

          • defcon 4

            THe actions of muslimes across the islamic world speak a lot louder than your attempts to paint islam as a religion of peace.

          • frjohnmorris

            I have never considered Islam as a religion of peace. It is a religion that teaches its followers to oppress non-Muslims. However, this is America and in America we have religious freedom. As long as American Muslims do not support the radicals, they should have as much religious freedom as any other religious group. Not all Muslims are radicals. American Muslims have assimilated much better than European Muslims. If mosque is teaching radicalism, it should be closed as a subversive organization. However if a mosque does not teach radicalism it should be given the same religious freedom as any other religious group.

          • frjohnmorris

            Muslims have a right to follow the teachings of the Koran in their private lives, but they do not have a right to force their beliefs on others. They have to accept the American principle of religious freedom. No one can force them to eat pork, but they have no right to keep me from eating a pork chop. I have a right to follow my religion and abstain from meat on certain days, but I have no right to demand that non-Orthodox observe our fasting rules. They have to accept the principle of separation of church or mosque and state as mandated in the 1st Amendment to our Constitution. Like all immigrants they have to accept the principles of American society or they should not come here.

          • Texas Patriot

            Sounds good in theory, but many Muslims believe that the duty of jihad and conquest is the most important duty of a Muslim. And apparently, the authority for that idea comes directly from the Koran itself.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWDB-e9q2H8

          • cheechakos

            And you are going to force this revision of their holy book and beliefs how?
            Are you going to outlaw their religious practices ?
            You are just preaching another form of religious persecution. You have no right to dictate or alter their religion.

            Once a muslim sets foot in any country they consider it a muslim country and proceed to convert non muslims by any means necessary.

            Islam is a death cult and a greedy political animal.Nothing more

          • frjohnmorris

            I have spent my life among Arab American Christians and know better than most Americans how oppressive Islam can be. We have had Muslims in America for decades and have only recently had any problems. These problems came from radicals influenced by oversees Muslims. As long as Muslms mind their own business and do not bother anyone else they have as much right to religious freedom as anyone else. When they turn radical and threaten others, they must be held accountable before the law.

          • defcon 4

            Their aim is to change that law to Sharia.

          • frjohnmorris

            That is true. Why is Obama supporting the Muslim radicals in Syria? It takes a dictator like Assad to keep the Muslims from persecuting Christians and the Sunni from killing Shea Muslims. The United States has trained the rebels, armed them and is sending them support. If they oust Assad, Syria will become another Islamic State. Remember in Egypt Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood that actively persecutes, kills Christians have have destroyed dozens of Christian Churches. In Iraq the US stood by and did nothing as the Muslims attacked the Christians. Now most Christians have left Iraq. If the Christian community in the Middle East is destroyed it will largely be due to American foreign policy.

          • defcon 4

            No, it won’t be “largely be due to American foreign policy” but by islam0nazi persecution and ethnic cleansing.

          • frjohnmorris

            That may be true, but Obama is supporting the rebels in Syria. I have yet to hear him say a word about the terrible fate of Christians in rebel controlled areas.

          • defcon 4

            I have yet to hear him, or any muzzies for that matter, say much about the persecution of anyone non-muslime practiced in all your muslime states.

          • frjohnmorris

            That is right Obama is either incredibly naive or he is pro-Islam. I personally think that he is in over his head and is totally unqualified to be our president.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: “If the Christian community in the Middle East is destroyed it will largely be due to American foreign policy.”

            The Christian community in the middle east IS being destroyed, and it is only collaterally the fault (i.e. stupidity) of American foreign policy. The primary driver of the ongoing genocide of Christians in the middle east is the Koran which authorizes and, indeed, commands Muslims to convert, subjugate, or kill non-Muslims.

          • Drakken

            I would love to show you some no go area’s in Europe, it would change your mind about allowing that abomination islam on our shores.

          • frjohnmorris

            Obviously the secular authorities must act to prevent such things. However, as long as Muslims accept our principle of religious toleration, they should be given the same religious freedom that all Americans enjoy.

          • Drakken

            Your better off making a pact with a snake than you are with the islamics, Islam and the west are polar opposites of each other, islam one way or another will make us rid our selves of the devil religion.

          • frjohnmorris

            St. John of Damascus wrote that Islam is the forerunner of the AntiChrist. But you would not know that since you fail to recognize the suffering imposed by Muslims on Orthodox Christians. I totally agree Islam is evil.

          • Drakken

            Unless your willing to send arms to help them, because a prayer is just not going to cut it.

          • frjohnmorris

            Christians do not send arms to anyone. We do not believe in war. However, last Sunday my parish took up a special collection, the first of many that we will take up, to send to the Patriarchate in Damascus to help the Syrian Christians. I have written two letters to Obama and letters to my congressman and both senators opposing giving American aid to the pro-Islamic rebels in Syria. I have also spoken on one of the local radio stations about the danger to Syrian Christians posed by the Obama backed rebels.

          • Drakken

            God helps those who help themselves, to send arms for a Christian people who are besieged is helping our Christian brothers, sorry padre, a prayer isn’t going to stop their slaughter, but force of arms will. If you want to send them to the lions you go ahead, the rest of us will use whatever means necessary to defend ourselves from Islamic slaughter.

          • frjohnmorris

            If you really want to help the Syrian Christians contact your representative in Congress and the US Senate as I have and ask the to vote against giving Obama permission to bomb Syria, because if he does, the Muslims will take over the country. The Syrian Christians do not need arms they need money to buy food and repair the damage done to their homes and Churches. St.Thekla’s monastery was severely damaged by the rebel attack. The Orthodox Church in Maaloula was destroyed by the rebels. Just yesterday the BBC reported that the leaders of the revolt against Assad met and agreed that their goal is to turn Syria into an Islamic state ruled by Sharia Law. These are the people that Obama is supporting with arms and money.

          • Drakken

            Kill all the muslims, the problem is solved and the Christians in the region can rebuild the churches and homes without being slaughtered, anything else is wishful thinking.

          • defcon 4

            The only way “to prevent such things” is to get rid of islam.

          • frjohnmorris

            Exactly how do you propose that this be done? It cannot be done. All that we can do is contain Islam and hope that they calm down.

          • Drakken

            Anything can be done, it is a question of what we are willing to do to accomplish that goal. In case you haven’t noticed padre, there is no coexistence with islam, there never has and there never will.

          • defcon 4

            Duh, the theology of islam is in complete contradiction to your last statement — as is borne out by every muslime state on the face of this earth today.

          • frjohnmorris

            I understand your point. But the time has come for Islam to enter the 21 century and learn the same tolerance of other religions that Christians had to learn after the wars following the Protestant Reformation. I admit that is difficult, because Christ never taught that those who leave the Christian Church should be killed. Those Christians who burned heretics at the stake were actually not following the teachings of Christ. I know that Islam does teach that those who leave Islam must be killed, but Muslims need enter the modern world to learn the principle of religious toleration and give up Sharia Law and accept the concept of the secular state. The civilized world cannot tolerate the kind of terrorism that took place last week end in Kenya and Pakistan towards non-Muslims.

          • defcon 4

            Freedom hasn’t been breaking out in any muslime state as far as I can tell, especially for the najjis kaffir. To pin your hopes on islam’s reformation is a pipe dream that plays right into the hands of the mendacious islam0fascists.

          • frjohnmorris

            You misunderstand me completely. I fully understand the dangers of Islam. However, there is very little chance that the Muslims will gain enough power in the United States to force their religion on us. If they became a majority they would be a major threat, but there is little chance of that happening.

            I strong oppose Obama’s policies in the Middle East because they have led to victories for radical Islamists. However, this began before Obama. In Kosovo and Bosnia the US supported the Muslims who have destroyed hundreds of Serbian Orthodox Churches. In Syria the US has trained, armed and aided the rebels who are heavily infiltrated by radical Muslims and are allied with Al Qaeda. They have committed all sorts of atrocities against Christians. They have killed Priests, driven the Christians out of Homs, They kidnapped the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan and Syriac Orthodox Bishop of Aleppo, and have massacred whole villages of Christians. Last month they tried to assassinate the leader of my Church, the Patriarch of Antioch, by firing on St. Mary’s Cathedral in Damascus while the clergy were distributing food to to the poor. In Maaloula they attacked and did major damage to the ancient St. Thekla’s Monastery. (By the way today is the feast of St. Thekla) They also terrorized the nuns and orphans being housed there. They destroyed both Churches in town, one Catholic and one Orthodox.

          • Drakken

            Islam is islam, and where ever islam goes the blood always flows, without exception, so please come back to reality instead of your wishful thinking kumbaya moment.

          • frjohnmorris

            Islam is not a monolithic religion. There are millions of Muslims in America who are patriotic Americans and do not bother anyone. Naturally, radical Muslims who seek to impose their beliefs on others must be forced to follow our American principles of religious freedom.

          • Drakken

            Wrong! Islam is a clear and present danger to the west and always has been. It will be dealt with sooner or later and islam is pushing for their demise sooner rather than later.

          • frjohnmorris

            Not all Muslims are terrorists. There are over a billion Muslims in the world the US cannot get involved in another war in the Middle East. We should make ourselves energy independent and get out of that part of the world. We certainly should not support pro-Islamic rebels in Syria.Have you read anything that I have written at all? I have yet to read any opposition to Obama’s pro Muslim polices.

          • Drakken

            But all terrorist are muslims, I frankly don’t care if there are a billion of them, they are all a bloody problem and a menace, especially if they live in our midst. As for Obummer and his policies in the muslim world? He is making war inevitable, and make no mistake padre, war is coming and Obummer is completely out of his depth or is complicit by design.

          • frjohnmorris

            I agree that Obama is completely in over his head.He does now know what he is doing, Benghazi showed that. He lacks the leadership skills to lead us in a war against terrorism. War with Islamic terrorists is already here. One of the mistakes that
            the Obama administration is making is treating terrorism as a criminal
            matter instead of a war. A terrorist should be treated as a combatant
            and not allowed to lawyer up and read his rights. He has given up our gains in Iraq by not insisting in leaving American troops there to keep the peace and conduct a de-radicalization program against radical Islam like we conducted a de-Nazification program in Germany after World War II. He has guaranteed that the Taliban will take over Afghanistan by telling them when we plan to leave. All they have to do is wait in Pakistan until we leave and then they will come back and take over Afghanistan again.

          • Drakken

            You are making a false equivalence in comparing the Germans to arab muslims, the Germans are a cultured western people, the arab muslims cannot be demuslimized, they must be dealt with the good ole fashioned way.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: “Not all Muslims are terrorists.”

            Then why do they stay in a religion that mandates violent jihad and calls for the conversion, subjugation, or murder of non-Muslims? How could they be willing to have that kind of ideology attached to their name and not be willing to be thought of as terrorists? Just because they don’t commit acts of terror doesn’t mean they’re not terrorists. If they believe they are entitled to commit acts of terror because of some supposed superior status conferred upon them by their religion, why shouldn’t they be considered terrorists?

          • frjohnmorris

            Have you read my posts? Although I am pure American whose ancestors came from Wales to Jamestown in 1619, I am an Antiochian Orthodox Christian priest. That means that I a priest of the Greek Orthodox Church from Syria and Lebanon. The headquarters of my Church is in Damascus. In America we use English and welcome converts to Orthodoxy. In fact, most of our priests and a lot of our people are converts, because we were one of the first Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in America to introduce English and welcome converts into the Orthodox Church. No one is more aware of the brutal nature of Islam than I am.Orthodox Christians have lived under Muslim oppression in the Middle East for almost 1,400 years. I have 33 years serving Arab American Orthodox Christians. Now I serve people whose ancestors came to America over 100 years ago to get away from Muslim oppression. They originally prayed in Arabic in my parish. Now, of course, we pray in English. Have you not read my criticisms of Obama because of his support for the pro-Muslim rebels in Syria or my accounts of the atrocities committed by the rebels against Christians in Syria? The Obama administration is supporting people who are allied with Al Qaeda and want to turn Syria into an Islamic state governed by Sharia Law. I am definitely not pro-Muslim. But, I am also a realist and believe that we cannot conquer the Islamic world. Therefore you owe me an apology.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: ” Therefore you owe me an apology.”

            Are you talking to me?

          • defcon 4

            Why don’t those OTHER non terrorist muslimes stop the persecution of people of other faiths that is SOP in all your muslime states?

          • Drakken

            Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are not a suicide pact with those who take our tolerance and openness as license to abuse us.

          • defcon 4

            Your debate here could be just as easily w/a sophisticated lying muslime as a Christian, especially considering his advocacy of a magical, “moderate” islam.

          • Drakken

            I am afraid your wrong on your little history lesson of the Reconquista of Spain, the muslim chose to leave rather than convert to Catholic and were purged from Spain. Islam will make it impossible to deal with them in a civilized manner, the only option after all is said and done is one of a massive purge. History has proved it time and time again.

          • Texas Patriot

            Not all of them left. Some converted. Not sure how many. That”s a good question for you to research.

          • Drakken

            I have, and over 90 % were purged from Catholic lands.

          • defcon 4

            Your theory hasn’t worked out in Israel or India, where islam0fascist terrorism has been a fact of life for more than sixty years.

          • Texas Patriot

            America is going to have to take a leadership role on this. As far as I know, those who continue to embrace and practice the murderous and totalitarian provisions of the Koran have not been outlawed and expelled from either Israel or India. Basically, it’s an ideology that is totally incompatible with the Western values of Human Rights, Individual Freedom, and Constitutional Democracy, and most knowledgable Islamic scholars would readily agree with that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPeE2AJr0tk

          • cheechakos

            Try 1400 years. Read the history of India to see the most horrendous ,cruel mass murders by muslims

          • defcon 4

            You’re right.

          • emi

            In that case we need to pray that God should give America a God fearing and Holy Spirit filled President to redeem the year that locust had eaten under Obama. And we better start praying to God NOW before we have another gay or Islamist president.American Christian pray now for a ‘Moses’.

          • Texas Patriot

            The job is too big for one individual. We need a NATION of committed Americans who want to make America great. That is the only way out of this quagmire.

          • PAthena

            You are right about the war in Vietnam. It was run by Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson as a non-war, the U.S. sending “messages” to North Vietnam. President Johnson micromanaged the war, instead of letting the military run it. In the presidential election of 1964, he campaigned against the Republican candidate Barry Goldwater as a “war monger” for proposing the military tactic of mining the harbor of Haiphong – calling him a “war-monger” in the middle of a war! Indeed, the war was over within two years when Richard Nixon became president and negotiated the Paris accords, providing for the independent South Vietnam. The government of South Vietnam was an elected one, and, after Nixon resigned as president as a consequence of Watergate, the Democrats in Congress in 1975, supporting the phoney “anti-Vietnam war” campaign, betrayed South Vietnam by cutting off the military aid guaranteed it by the Paris accords.

          • Texas Patriot

            As Barry Goldwater said, if Vietnam was not vital to our national security interests, we should have never gotten involved there at all. If it was, we should have gone all out to win the war immediately. If we had been serious about winning, it could have been over in weeks. But it is obvious that we were never serious about winning anything, just as it is obvious, in hindsight, that it was never essential to our national security interests. Vietnam was very much like the so-called “Syria crisis” is today, i.e. a political football that politicians like to throw around to drum up money from special interest contributors, but not really anything that affects the vital national security interests of the American people.

    • frjohnmorris

      It was not the land of the Crusaders to begin with because the Holy Land never belonged to Western European Christians. To the Eastern Christians, the Crusaders were a barbaric, vicious, and persecuting force, When Pope Urban II proclaimed the Crusades in 1095, one of his stated goals was to force Eastern Christians to submit to the power of the papacy. Eastern Christians were just as much victims of the Crusaders as the Muslims. When the Crusaders took Antioch in 1098, they threw out the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and appointed a Roman Catholic in his place. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they slaughtered so many people that it is reported that the blood ran through the streets as high as the belly of their horses. Every where they went they tried to force the Eastern Orthodox to submit to papal domination. This barbarism reached a climax in 1204 when the Crusaders conquered and pillaged Constantinople, replaced the Greek Orthodox Patriarch with a Roman Catholic Patriarch and stole everything they could and sent many of the treasurers of the Byzantine Church back to Western Europe. The Crusades are nothing to feel proud about. They were one of the most barbaric periods in European history. As the Crusaders went through the Rhine Valley they slaughtered thousands of Jews. There is nothing good or heroic about the Crusades.

      • cheechakos

        The Holy Land belongs to ALL Christians and Jews just as muslims have Mecca.
        Europeans made pilgrimages to the Holy Land for centuries and were brutally robbed,raped and murdered by muslims. Nuns were raped and boiled alive in Jerusalem. Part of the Crusades were a response to 200 years of brutality by muslims against pilgrims.

        “It was not the land of the Crusaders to begin with”
        You can’t pick and choose historical time frames to support your ideology. People immigrated from the ME since the time of Neanderthals. How do you suppose religions spread?
        You think European Jews magically appeared?

        It was Christian land before muslim and all of it was Jewish land before Christianity. How did muslims gain control?
        Mass murder,hatred and greed

      • Drakken

        Your pro islam stance is duly noted. The Crusades were a result of muslim aggression and the holy land was Christian and Jewish before islam came crawling out of the desert. Get your history right and yes the Crusades are something to be proud of and the result of the Crusades is that the spread of islam was slowed and we from Europe are not in the dark ages like the rest of the Islamic world.

        • frjohnmorris

          I am anything but pro-Muslim. I am pro-religious freedom. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I strongly disagree about the Crusades, because the Crusaders tried to use force to convert Eastern Orthodox Christians to Roman Catholicism. Orthodox Christians were just as victimized by the Crusades as were the Muslims. The Crusades were not to liberate Christians oppressed by Muslims, they were to bring the Eastern Orthodox Church under papal domination. I suggest that you get your history right. Nothing is more offensive to a professionally trained historian like myself than the theories of amateur historians.

          As a priest of the Antiochian Orthodox Church which is led by the Patriarch of Antioch with headquarters in Damascus, I think that I have a much better understanding of the subject than you do. As a PhD in history and former university professor of history, I also think that I have a better knowledge of history than you do.

          .

          • Drakken

            Your an Islamic dhimmi who openly side with and sympathize with Islamic jihad, God Bless the Crusades
            Deo Volente!

          • frjohnmorris

            The Crusades were not just against Muslims. They were also against Eastern Orthodox Christians. Read about what the Crusaders did to Constantinople in 1204. It was the Crusades that fatally weakened the Byzantine Empire making inevitable the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the oppression of Orthodox Christians in the Balkans. Thank God that the King of Poland and his armies arrived in time at the Kallenberg to save Vienna from Islamic conquest in 1683.

          • Drakken

            Well I guess the Islamic slaughter and enslavement of the citizens of Constantinople make no mention in your narrative. Your welcome that my Teutonic and Hapsburg ancestors helped get rid of the Islamic menace while your eastern orthodox church did nothing. So much for your Phd in history padre.

          • frjohnmorris

            I actually have a certain fondness for the Habsburgs. I love Vienna. I have many fond memories of my days as a student in Germany. 19th century German history was my area of specialization on my PhD. I studied as a Fulbright Scholar at Goethe University in Frankfurt. Go back and reread my posts, I have mentioned the fact that 1204 so weakened the Byzantine Empire that its fall to the savage Turks was inevitable. I also praised John Sobieski and the Polish army that saved Vienna from the Turks at the Kahlenberg in 1683. The Eastern Orthodox suffered centuries of Turkish domination and survived. That is doing something. The Arab Orthodox that you so despise suffered almost 1,400 years of Muslim oppression and kept their faith in Christ. As late as 1860, Muslim mobs burned St. Mary’s Cathedral in Damascus the seat of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and killed its priest, St. Joseph of Damascus.

          • Drakken

            I am of Hapsburg and Prussian nobility and have had very deep discussions with my cousin the new Arch Duke and a certain Bishop, as how to approach the problem of the Islamic infestation of Europe, while they are of the taking a behind the scenes approach, I take the more open and direct approach. You obviously haven’t been to Vienna lately for if you had been, you would see the city infested with the very filthy turks we threw out centuries before and turning that beautiful city into the cesspool they came from.
            What used to be a beneath the surface resentment of muslims in our midst is now open hostility and outright acts of that displeasure, it is only a matter of time before what happens in the ME will come spilling into the streets of a European city and well the rest will be history, a Balkans on steroids.

          • defcon 4

            Islam has nothing to do w/freedom and everything to do w/oppression.

  • marineh2ominer

    Bassackwards !!! The crusades was in direct response to Jihad , as the muslim barbarians were advancing on both Europe and Asia , Just more lying communist professors and teachers that are either stupid or deranged .

    • Brucew56

      @marineh2ominer I think that’s what he said.

  • tokoloshiman

    when all your law is enshrined in a violent out of date, unchanging book it is no wonder the islamic world is so backward , and out of touch with the modern world. when laws of man take second place to these ancient texts violence, poverty and backwardness are what is left.

    • Texas Patriot

      There is one more thing that is left, jihad. And that is their total focus.

  • PD MacGuire

    In 1920 the Treaty of Sevres awarded large portions of Turkey to Greece and Armenia, as war reparations. It would have removed all Moslems from Europe. That treaty is still technically in effect. It’s never too late to drive them completely out of Europe.

  • Smoking Hamster

    I bet as a Muslim he opposes Jewish Capitalism and Jewish Communism. AKA, the exact same approach as Hitler and anti-Semites everywhere.

    • muchiboy

      My religion has little to nothing to do with any argument here.I know little about Islam or Judaism,and lately am not impressed with either.

      • Drakken

        There is zero moral equivalency where islam and Judaism are concerned. Islam wants you dead or converted, Jews are live and let live. In a war between civilization and the savage, always go with the civilized man. So pull your head out of your azz and start paying attention.

  • defcon 4

    “Muslim extremists” financed and supported by “moderate” muslimes.

  • muchiboy

    Zionism had its roots in Europe,and many if not most of the immigrants came from Europe,and many more fleeing the Holocaust.One can track the onset of Antisemitism in Europe and the numbers of Jewish immigrant settlers in Palestine.One might also speculate that a reason for antisemitism in Arab countries was the threat of Zionism in Palestine.

    I have little interest in the ethnic cleansing in countries other than Palestine,except to say that it is unconscionable and should be condemned and where possible reversed and corrected.

    “.So you think the ‘Zionists’ are controlling what I and other think and write; just as the Nazis thought about the Jews .”
    I am not sure what you are arguing here.

    Jew,antisemitism and Zionism have pretty definite meanings.They are related but not the same.I don’t equate antisemitism and anti Zionism.The distinction is important here.Your last paragraph is full of unfounded allegations that hardly seem worthwhile denying or responding to.

    • Drakken

      Please put your money where your mouth is and go join your jihadist buddies in Gaza, I am sure Rachel(st pancake) Corrie could use the company.

      • muchiboy

        It says a lot about you and something about this community that not one member has criticized this degrading comment about a young American women who gave her life in defense of an innocent and vulnerable family and victimized people.The likes of this brave young women were killed in similar fashion protecting Jews from Nazi persecution.Shame on the lot of you. .

        • Drakken

          She got exactly what that anti-American hating bitch deserved. That fact that you empathize with that traitor says more about you and your support and defense of Islamic jihad than it does about us. May she rot in hell !

    • Paul Austin Murphy

      “I have little interest in the ethnic cleansing in countries other than Palestine…”

      You said it! Exactly what I thought. Just as the Nazis in England, who so far have shown ZERO interest in any other foreign conflict, have suddenly developed a massive interest in the plight of the Palestinians – who have brown skin! In fact, many have joined Leftists and gone to Palestine to help them. I’m glad that the Nazis are finally ‘embracing diversity’.This is so blatantly what it seems I don’t know how can see it for being anything else.

      I made the point about Jewish thought control because you said, it an earlier post, that non-Jewish people were unknowingly advancing the Zionist line – even if you didn’t use those exact words. Leftists are always putting that line as if all non-Leftists who aren’t Jews are fu*king stupid. But you clever people, who don’t have ‘Zionist false consciousness’, miraculously escape such propaganda possibly because you’ve read a book by Chomsky.

      Yes, I know that ‘anti-Semitism doesn’t mean anti-Zionism’. They are NOT synonymous. I have never said that. However, every ‘anti-Zionist’ I have known and read about has also hated the Jews. Also, Jew-hatred invariably leads to anti-Zionism. No one argues that ‘anti-Zionism’ and Jew-hatred are the same. It’s just that most anti-Zionists hate Jews. The point really is that simple.

      • muchiboy

        I had an early interest in the Palestinians because of a grandfather who emigrated to Cape Breton from Bethlehem,Palestine,in the early 1900′s,along with other immigrants from around the world.He was Christian and was killed in the coal mines of Cape Breton.I don’t feel I have a dog in this fight as much as an early awareness and continuing interest in the conflict.My interest is more an ethical one than personal.I never knew my Grandfather,my Mom was raised a Catholic as was I.There was never any antisemitism expressed in my family nor interest in an Arab heritage.I have no known Palestinian relatives in Palestine,though I have made little effort to study that.
        While I had no Jewish friends growing up,neither did I have Black or Asian friends,My communities were WASPS and later European immigrants from Italy,Greece,etc.,though Jews did play somewhat more than a casual part in my life,as our landlord,grocer,clothier and dentist were Jewish.
        I can deny any antisemitism here till the cows come home but that always falls on deaf ears.Furthermore,while I don’t have any anti Communist leanings,and why should I,as where are the Communists now,I did fight a war in Southern Africa against Marxist Terrorists,as a volunteer,like many other foreigners.

  • guest

    ibn warraq is fantastic, his book ‘why im not a moslem’ was an eye opener and written so clearly and knowledgeably. back when there were few websites and fewer books to expose and describe the situation in an honest and historically correct way. another shorter book titled jihad in europe by i believe paul fregaso showed in great detail the centuries of islamic horrors in north africa and europe that forced europeans to unite and hit back in self defense in a final attempt to save the european continent from the barbaric and violent invaders . it is a very depressing story and it is true that we were taught the exact opposite of the actual events and historical facts. in fact the islamic violent and ruthless imperialists were the ones who ravaged europe with raids and mass murders almosthundreds of years before the europeans could unite and repel the vicious invaders and save europe and all the western civilization. . war is never “good” but it sometimes but saving europe was a life or death matter of the whole western civilization. ibn warraq is a great reference and very enlightening

    • defcon 4

      Ibm Warraq is a good public speaker as well.I saw him once at a Pamela Geller/Robert Spencer event in Los Angeles. He was funny and witty.

  • Brucew56

    There is no way to reason with Islamists. They are relentless and brutal, even to their own, and demand absolute allegiance to their religious dogma interpreted by their imams.

    There will be no resolution to the terror until there is world-wide outrage and force to drive Islam back to the dark ages. That will not happen, so we are in for hundreds of years misery. As Dr Warner says “we are traumatized like victims”.

    • Drakken

      Make no mistake, war is coming and it will be sooner rather than later, islam is pushing us to return the favor in spades and they will have brought it upon themselves, our western vengeance is going to be brutal, sudden and relentless. Think Balkans on steroids.

      • Brucew56

        @Drakken Yup, it really is going to take an all out war to end this or it will plague us forever. The question is, who will declare war on muslimes? The US is too politically correct and the administration (Obumble) would never allow it. Russia and China would veto any action by the UN. So, who will declare it?

        • Drakken

          It will start as a small local matter and snowball from there, events will overtake reluctance on the part of local authorities.

          • Brucew56

            It’s already started in Europe. There are “no enter zones” in European cities where police and fire won’t go. It will be an all out war within 20 years all over the world. Our leaders are being hoodwinked and Hillary is building mosques all over the world with our money.

          • Drakken

            It won’t be in 20 years, it is upon us now, all it is going to take is for someone to light the match and throw it into the sea of gasoline to set the whole thing on fire.

  • LDMack

    Holding a grudge after 1,000 years is a bit psychotic. Until you bring up 911, boy do they scramble..

  • frjohnmorris

    You failed to point out that the Eastern Christians suffered persecution from the Crusaders, who tried to force them to accept papal domination. When the Crusaders took Antioch, they threw out the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and appointed a Roman Catholic in his place. They did the same thing in Jerusalem. The atrocities committed by the Crusaders in Constantinople in 1204 ares some of the greatest examples of war crimes in history. They desecrated the Orthodox Cathedral of Holy Wisdom and stole many icons and religious objects from the Orthodox and sent them back to Western Europe. So you should remember that the Muslims are not the only ones who have bad memories about the Crusades.

    • RonMar

      FYI, Johnny, the Crusades were started by a Roman Catholic pope, thus no reason for a sane person to expect anything other than what you described.

      Then there you go again aiding, abetting and supporting the Muslims – Islamic jihadists.

      You really need some mental health counseling, Johnny.

      • frjohnmorris

        You really need to study some history. As a priest of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, I know a lot more than you do about the dangers of radical Muslim. It is my Church that is threatened with extinction by the radical Muslims. However, Orthodox Christians have also suffered from Zionist oppression.

        • RonMar

          Johnny: 1) You don’t know what I know about Islam and Muslims. 2) You have already told me you have never been where i am right now for the 15th relatively long-term stay since ’04 alone. A hint for you, Johnny, I am in the Middle East within minutes from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, a few more minutes to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
          So please don’t continue throwing your titles at me and telling me how much more you know than I do, how superior you are, Johnny.
          Every time you open your lily-livered lips and mutter “Zionist oppression,” etc., you are helping Islamic jihadists. I really do not understand how you can be so thickheaded as not to get that.

          • frjohnmorris

            You obviously do not know much about the plight of the Palestinian people. If you have ever spoken with a Palestinian Christian you would understand the real harm that the Zionists have done to them. I know more than you because I am a priest of a Church with roots in the Middle East and have ministered to Palestinian Christians, most of whom are Greek Orthodox. Your hatred of the native Christians of the Middle East is really helping the Islamic jihadists.

          • RonMar

            In your arrogance and ignorance plus whatever mental disabilities you are suffering “you obviously” have not been reading my posts to you over the past several days.
            You do not know what I know, how much or how little; thus for you to make your arrogant and ignorant claims is simply stupid.
            My “hatred of the native Christians ….” How dare you, you pompous jerk. FYI I am in the Middle East right now, arrived today to help here and not the Islamic jihadists that you help every time you post your crazy nonsense.
            Where are you Fr, Archbishop, Priest, etc., etc., etc., and exactly what are you doing today, right now with your Ph.D., silly titles, garments, rituals, etc.?

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: “You obviously do not know much about the plight of the Palestinian people. If you have ever spoken with a Palestinian Christian you would understand the real harm that the Zionists have done to them.”

            Palestianian Christians live in a Muslim-majority nation in the middle east. Under Islamic law, that necessarily means they are to be treated as a subjugated people and discriminated against as a matter of course. If they make any statement that could be construed as an “insult” to Islam, they can be killed. If they fail to pay the jizyah tax, they can be killed. If they do not submit and properly act the part of a subdued and subjugated people, they can be killed. How is any of that the fault of the Israeli people? I have met Christian priests before who were Muslim sympathizers, but not recently. Most are now very well aware of the ongoing genocide and extermination of Christians in the name of Islam. How is it that you cannot see that the origin of the institutionalized inhumanity towards non-Muslims in the middle east is the Koran itself, which not only authorizes it, but commands it?

          • frjohnmorris

            I know better than you do the oppressive nature of Islam. I am a priest in the Arabic speaking branch of the Orthodox Church, except in America where we use English and welcome non Arab converts like myself. The head of the branch of the Orthodox Church to which I belong is the Greek Orthodox Patriarch with headquarters in Damascus. The last parish that I served was majority recent immigrants from the Middle East.

            The Palestinians with whom I have spoken have immigrated to the US and are not speaking under Islamic threat. There are two separate issues, the Palestinian Christians under Zionism and the Palestinian Christians under Islam. Under Assad, and in Jordan and Lebanon Christians have almost complete freedom. The reality is that Christians are persecuted in Israel. I have friends who were spat upon by ultra-Orthodox Jews because they were dressed as Orthodox Priests. Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem jeer and harass Christian religious processions. The Zionists drove the Palestinians from their homes and lands. They have built strategically placed illegal settlements in the occupied territories designed to give the Zionists control of the water supply. They have even build highways between the settlements that divide Palestinian lands, which can only be used by Jews. For a Palestinian Christian living under Zionism is not much better and in some cases worse than living under Islam.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: “The reality is that Christians are persecuted in Israel. I have friends who were spat upon by ultra-Orthodox Jews because they were dressed as Orthodox Priests. Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem jeer and harass Christian religious processions.”

            Being jeered and spat on is a far cry better than being burned alive in your Church or hanged or stoned to death for some real or imagined violation of Islamic law. As you well know, Christians are called to ignore insults, to turn the other cheek, and if someone wants the coat off your back, to give it to them. Christ did not teach that we should allow someone to murder us or our families. Christians have a right of self-defense like anyone else, and at this point in time, Christians world-wide are under assault by radical Muslims intent on making the so-called prophecies of Muhammad a reality. For more than forty years, at least since the attack on the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, the West has been under steady attack by Islamic radicals. We are reaching a breaking point where we must either lay down and die or start fighting back and ending this assault on Western Civilization. Where do you stand on that?

          • frjohnmorris

            I strongly oppose Obama’s policies in the Middle East especially his support for the Islamic rebels in Syria. Do you care about the fate of Syrian Christians? They are threatened with extinction if Assad is removed, because Assad protected them from the Muslim radicals. Sept. 24 is the feast of St. Thekla. The Muslims attacked the Greek Orthodox monastery on the site of her tomb and did major damage. I have written elsewhere on this discussion about the atrocities committed by the rebels against Syrian Christians, so will not repeat what I have already written. If you and others on this discussion are really concerned about the growth of Islamic radicalism the first thing that you should do it try to influence our government to stop supporting Muslim radicals in Syria. Look what has happened to the Coptic Christians of Egypt because Obama through that he could deal with the Muslim Brotherhood.

          • Texas Patriot

            frjohnmorris: “I strongly oppose Obama’s policies in the Middle East especially his support for the Islamic rebels in Syria. Do you care about the fate of Syrian Christians? They are threatened with extinction if Assad is removed, because Assad protected them from the Muslim radicals.”

            Of course I do. I think Obama’s policies of arming the Al Qaida affiliated rebels in Syria is absolutely insane, and I can’t understand it at all.

          • RonMar

            frjohnmorris has convinced me in his many posts that he is “absolutely insane, and I can’t understand [him] at all.”
            His refusal to discuss truths, facts, real history and current events – the issues – at all and continue claiming he knows more than others here including me is outrageous, pathetic and downright silly.
            It is no wonder people like him are being murdered in horrible ways in Syria and elsewhere that do the insane things he does based on his ridiculous, high-faluting titles and a few years in some biased, prejudiced schools.

          • defcon 4

            I call shenanigans.

          • RonMar

            Isn’t it nice the way he insults you by saying he knows “more than you do.” He and others like him in Syria are serving the Islamic jihadists and literally losing their heads for their troubles.
            I cannot fathom how anyone can behave as stupidly as he is doing.

          • Drakken

            It’s called Stockholm Syndrome, and being under the thumb of islam for so long they openly side with the very savages that are killing them, I am completely out of sympathy for such people, they deserve their fate.

          • RonMar

            I suppose so, but frjohnny is a special case.

          • RonMar

            Johnny, what a crock of crap:
            1. “I know better than you do the oppressive nature of Islam. I am a priest in the Arabic speaking branch
            of the Orthodox Church, except in America where we use English and welcome non Arab converts like myself. The head of the branch of the Orthodox Church to which I belong is the Greek Orthodox Patriarch with
            headquarters in Damascus. The last parish that I served was majority recent immigrants from the Middle East. -
            Have you ever visited in or served in the Middle East? If so to what country(ies) for how long, in what capacity, what years?
            2. There is no such thing as a Palestine, thus no such thing as Palestinians. You need to listen more, speak way less.
            3. The people “with whom I have spoken have immigrated to the US and are not speaking under Islamic threat.” – Really? How many Muslims are in the US? How many Islamic jihadists? From what named Islamic jihad terrorist groups? How many masjids/mosques, Islamic Societies, etc., are in the US? Where? What do they do other than religion-related matters, e.g. collecting zakat, providing logistics support to Islamic jihadists here?
            4. “There are two separate issues, the Palestinian Christians under Zionism and the Palestinian
            Christians under Islam. Under Assad, and in Jordan and Lebanon Christians have almost complete freedom.” – You omit, caring not at all about the issue of the Jews and how they have been, are treated and are to be murdered if the Islamic jihadists you support with your propaganda lies have their ways.
            5. “The reality is that Christians are persecuted in Israel. I have friends who were spat upon by
            ultra-Orthodox Jews because they were dressed as Orthodox Priests. Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem jeer and harass Christian religious processions. The Zionists drove the Palestinians from their homes and
            lands. They have built strategically placed illegal settlements in the occupied territories designed to give the Zionists control of the water supply. They have even build highways between the settlements that
            divide Palestinian lands, which can only be used by Jews. For a Palestinian Christian living under Zionism is not much better and in some cases worse than living under Islam.” – Lies, all Islamic jihadist propaganda lies. You cannot prove a word of it. You offer not one independent, verifiable source. You are an evil and foolish person aiding, abetting and supporting Islamic jihadists and hating Israel, Israelis and Jews.
            Answer my questions: Why did the Arab Muslims/Islamic Jihadists not establish a Palestine in 1948 pursuant to UN Resolution 181 of 1947 when Modern Israel was established from Ancient Israel? Who first used the term Palestine, when, where, how and most importantly why?
            Answer the questions hate-filled man spreading anti-Israel, Israeli, Jewish and pro-Islamic jihadist lies.

          • frjohnmorris

            I am not pro Muslim jihadist. I am, however, pro-Christian and know what has happened to the Christians under Israeli domination. You are ignorant of the plight of the Palestinians and are simply repeating pro-Zionist propaganda.

            Again whatever you call the place or its people, the fact remains that the native population has been displaced and settlers from outside the Middle East have established a state that treats the native population as inferiors. Do not lie and try to argue, because I have spent my adult life among Arab Americans, immigrants from the Middle East and Palestinians and know their side of the story.

          • Drakken

            Side with islam, perish with them and good bloody riddance, your a traitor to the church and a heretic.

          • frjohnmorris

            I do not side with Islam. You are taking my words completely out of context. I am a Christian who believes in peace and tolerance for all. I also know the serious threat of radical Islam much more than you do, because it is my Church that is suffering from the pro-Islamic rebels receiving arms and support from the Obama administration. Go to the web site of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese and read some of the statements of our Patriarch and Metropolitan Philip on what is really happening in Syria. Just because I believe in the American principle of religious freedom does not make me pro-Muslim. However, you have to realize that the Zionists are also guilty of persecuting Orthodox Christians. Have you ever spoken with a Palestinian Christian about their suffering. It would be a very enlightening experience for you.

          • Drakken

            The Jews are just guilty of existing in the face of Islamic aggression, they persecute no one, and in fact, I blame them for being way to nice to their enemies and letting them continue their 1,400 year jihad against us infidels instead of giving them what they so richly deserve. Deo Volente !

          • frjohnmorris

            No single group of people have suffered more under Islam than the Eastern Orthodox. I am not a supporter of Islamic jihad. That is why I object to Obama’s policy of supporting the rebels in Syria.

          • Drakken

            So in order to assuage your guilt, you openly side with Islamic jihad in Gaza and west bank? Too funny if it wasn’t so bloody pathetic.

          • frjohnmorris

            Only a complete idiot would accuse someone who is concerned with the survival of Christians in the Middle East with supporting Islamic jihad in the Gaza or any place else. I agree that Hamas must stop sending rockets into Israel. Remember it members of my Church that are being persecuted by Islamic radicals in the Gaza.

            The Islamic radicals reject the two state solution and any compromise with Israel. I favor the two state solution and compromises between both sides. Despite my feelings about Zionism, I am pragmatic and recognize the fact of Israel. I just want the same rights of national self-determination for the Palestinians. Where are the Palestinians to go under your solution? They are people who have a right to exist. They are not Syrians, Lebanese or Jordanians. They are Palestinians.

          • Drakken

            There will never EVER be a two state solution period! Because the islamaniacs want all of Israel proper and they don’t care how many dead bodies it takes to accomplish that goal. So dreaming that the muslims will compromise with Israel is a pipe dream, so get out of your ivory tower of whacademia and see the world for what it is, instead of wishful thinking. By the way, there never ever was a so called place called Palestine. They lost any and all rights to that nonsense by the wars they started and lost, to the victors go the spoils.

          • frjohnmorris

            You are the one who is unrealistic. There is a place called Palestine and the only rational solution is a compromise through the two state solution. That has been the policy of our US government since Carter. The Muslims will have to be forced to give up their dream or destroying Israel and will have to renounce terrorism. The Zionists will have to recognize the reality of the Palestinian people. I think that most Jews realize that. Both sides have started wars and committed atrocities. The Israelis did terrible things in Lebanon and the settlers movement has desecrated Orthodox Churches and monasteries in Israel. The only rational solution is two states. The Israelis cannot drive the Palestinians out of the Occupied Territories. They cannot annex them because in time the Palestinians will outnumber the Jews and the Zionists do not want that. I think that even Netanyahu realizes that.

          • Drakken

            I can tell you with 100% certainly that there will never ever be a two state solution, period, the muslims will never allow it for they want Israel destroyed and every Jew dead. The muslims will without any doubt push the Israeli’s to finally deal with them with extreme measures and take the whole thing and kick out the rest.
            It wasn’t the settlers that desecrated the Orthodox and Catholic churches and holy sites, it was your pali muslim friends that did that and you fell for the Islamic propaganda, hook ,line and sinker.
            The only thing that useful idiot Carter did was ensure that Arafat pulled a infadah because he spoke one thing to the western audience and a completely different tune to his fellow muslims. and the western press could not understand why, when they had Arafat’s word that they would finally have peace.

          • defcon 4

            “Pro-Christian” eh? Strange that you have nothing to say about the ethnic cleansing of Christians from all the muslime states in the Mid-East and N. Africa, Ahmed.

          • frjohnmorris

            That is only because that is not the topic of this thread. I support the rights of the Coptic Orthodox to live free from Muslim oppression in Egypt. i also opposed American policy towards Kosovo under Clinton, which has allowed Albanian Muslims to destroy hundreds of Serbian Orthodox Churches.

          • RonMar

            I am not ignorant. You are and have proven yourself so, arrogant also, by refusing to discuss the issues with me, to answer my questions, you only keep repeating your childish claims of being superior and pounding away as a propaganda liar favoring Islamic jihadists and damning Jews, Israel and Israelis.
            Practically every statement you make is a lie, e.g,, “I have spent my adult life among Arab Americans, immigrants from the Middle East and Palestinians know their side of the story.”
            You admit you have spent time with unhappy, disgruntled people who left Israel, came to the US, or were in fact born here calling themselves “Arab Americans” or “Palestinians,” whined all over you, and you bought it.
            If you could prove you had spent any time in Israel or the Middle East, among the people there you would say so. If you could prove there was ever such a place as Palestine you would say so. Since there never has been, is not now and is not likely ever to be a Palestine there are no Palestinians.
            Johnny, you lose big time, and you have done it in such a weak, foolish way. You didn’t even really try to argue the points but relied only on your many silly titles. How pathetically sad for you.

          • frjohnmorris

            I have never claimed that I have spent time in Israel. If there are no Palestinians,there sure are a lot of people who call themselves Palestinians. Just who are the native Arabs in the Occupied Territories? I spoke just this morning with a retired Orthodox Bishop originally from Taibe in the Occupied Territories. My Bishop is from Syria,but is an American citizen. Most of the people of my parish are descendants of Lebanese who came here over 100 years ago. However, in my last parish the majority of people were from Palestine. That area of the world has been called Palestine for hundreds of years. You are the one who is spewing out propaganda and lies. You do not conceal your hatred for the native Arab population of Palestine. I am a Christian and do not believe that any Christian should favor the oppression of any people by another. I am also an American and do not believe that giving unconditional support to any foreign country is in our national interests.

          • RonMar

            If you had claimed to “have spent time in Israel” it would have been only another of your blatantly obvious lies.
            There are lots of liars.
            Your use of such Islamic jihadist propaganda lies as “the Occupied Territories” is horrendously offensive to knowledgeable people and to the Lord, God, Jesus the Christ and the Holy Spirit.
            Blah, blah, blah. No one, I repeat no one you have ever met or are likely ever to meet has been or is likely ever to be “from Palestine.” There is no such thing as a Palestine, never has been and is never likely to be.
            Yes, it has been called that “for hundreds of years” out of thousands of years. So what? It is still a lie, the people and you are liars and propagandists favoring Islamic jihadists intent on destroying Israel and murdering all Jews worldwide. Yet you say the hateful, mean things you say about me.
            The fact is I work as a Christian missionary witnessing Jesus as the Christ to Muslims, Jews and others in their traditional homelands where I am right now, also in the US and wherever I may be. It’s in the Bible, frjohnny. Look it up. Matthew 28:18-20. Also take a look at Matthew 25:31-46, liar.
            You are not a Christian. You will go to Hell unless you repent and change, pray for forgiveness for all you have done against the Lord, God, Jesus the Christ for so long in your miserable life.
            I do not give “unconditional support to any foreign country” you hopelessly pathetic liar. Read my profile if, when you learn to read or have someone who can read and explain it to you now.
            johnny, here it is for you in plain English, truth, facts, real history and current events. You need to deal with it:
            - There is no such thing as a Palestine or Palestinians. it and they are myths, fictions, lies created by a person with a purpose, a most evil purpose much like you.
            - You claim to be a historian you answer my questions – who first used the word Palestine for the Holy Land of the Jews, when, where, how and most importantly why? Deal with it, johnny.
            - Why did the Arab Muslims refuse to establish in 1948 a Palestine pursuant to UN Resolution 181 of 1947 when the Israelis, Jews established Modern Israel from Ancient Israel? Deal with it, johnny.
            - A two-state solution is not possible for the reasons I have explained to you already, and Jerusalem is divided already and has been for centuries. Deal with the truths, facts, real history and current events johnny. Do not continue to be a liar, hopeless sinner bound for Hell. You have invested too much of your life in the church to make such stupid mistakes.
            God be with you.

          • Drakken

            They are either Jordanians in the west bank or Egyptians in Gaza, there are no fakestinians period.

          • RonMar

            “They” are all kinds of people and things.
            The important things are:
            - There is no such thing as a Palestine, never has been and is never likely to be so.
            - The Arab Muslims refused to establish a Palestine pursuant to UN Resolution 181 of 1947 in 1948 when Modern Israel was established from Ancient Israel.
            - Thus there are no such thing as Palestinians. The land and its people are a myth. I believe frjohnny knows who created the myth historically, and he refuses to deal with it. It is a fact. Liars cannot, do not deal with facts.
            - Jerusalem has been divided for centuries, presently into Jerusalem in part controlled by Israeli Jews, East Jerusalem and major parts of Jerusalem controlled by Arab Muslims. The latter include much of Old Jerusalem, the Temple Mount site of the al-Aqsa Masjid/Mosque and the Dome of the Rock – the shiny-domed-building seen in practically all pictures of Jerusalem – and the Muslim Quarter in Old Jerusalem.
            - Israel extends full citizenship rights to all who live in the Holy Land except the Arab Muslims cannot serve in the Israeli Defense Force. They cannot be trusted.
            - Israel has given land, given land and given land for peace, yet the Arab Muslims and such as frjohnny do not leave the Israelis, Israel in peace.They are hateful troublemakers intent on the destruction of Israel and murder of all Jews worldwide.
            - They tell all kinds of lies and cannot sustain a one of them or refute the truths, facts, real history and current events. They are disgusting, hateful, mean people with evil intents.

          • Drakken

            That is the problem our our Christian clergy today, they believe that they can make peace with a religion that wants them dead or living as dhimmis, I shake my head with utter disgust at their servile attitude of surrender, instead of defending the faith and faithful. That is why I support and defend Israel in the face of Islamic aggression.

          • RonMar

            I agree with you. The so-called “Christian” clergy are fulfilling Bible prophecy by being so weak. johnny goes well beyond weak to actually aiding, abetting, supporting and apologizing for the Islamic jihadists.
            He has really revealed himself here as a self-important, pompous jerk so impressed with himself, his titles, Ph.D., what will turn out to be a wasted life, his cowardice, biases and prejudices, blowhard nature, and self-delusions by refusing even to try answering my questions.
            He is a classic example of those I call willfully ignorant going to stupid, easily-duped fools, idiots really, posting like racist Dem Lib Obamaniacs.

          • Drakken

            As a Catholic myself, I really have an issue with the church being silent in the face open slaughter of Christians and Jews in the ME. The fact that the padre is an academic of eastern orthodoxy speaks volumes as to how the insidious left has infected the holy politic with appeasement, derangement and cowardly silence in the face of Islamic aggression and extermination. The unholy left always sides with evil no matter what and are plainly against what is good and righteous. This ends one way or another with war, you can smell it coming and hear the war drums on the horizon. I wish you well and pray for your safety, if you must in the face of Islamic aggression, pick up the rifle again as you did while in uniform. God sure isn’t going to condemn for protecting yourself and others.

          • Drakken

            There is a but in there Padre, you have never been there, so you have no knowledge of what goes on there except what a buch of dhmmi arabs tell you. You might ask yourself some very important questions Padre, what happened to most of the Christians in Bethlehem and Nazareth, which used to be 92% Christian and are now less than 10 % ? So your little narrative of the jews persecuting them doesn’t wash since the Pali Authority runs the areas and no Israel.

          • frjohnmorris

            Bethlehem would still be majority Christian if so many Palestinian Christians had not left because they did not want to live under Israeli domination. The Palestinian Christians did not leave because of their Muslim neighbors, but because the Israelis have made life so hard on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories that most of the Christians finally decided to leave rather than continue to live under Zionist domination.

          • Drakken

            They left because of muslim aggression and persecution you ignoramus! The PA runs it, so Israel has nothing to do with it, good God man your bloody thicker than a fence post. So stick that in your PhD academic pipe and smoke it.

          • frjohnmorris

            That is not what they have told me. They left because Israeli domination of the Occupied Territories has made life unbearable for the Palestinians. Reading your posts, I understand why.

          • Drakken

            Complete utter BULLS***! There it is, you were told, and you like a good little leftist, fell for it. There is no middle ground here period, those days are over, you either side with the evil that is islam or you side with western enlightenment and make no mistake that includes Israel. your choice padre, choose wisely.

          • frjohnmorris

            You need to go back and study the ideas of the Enlightenment. One of the principles that came out of the Enlightenment was enshrined in our Declaration of independence written by Thomas Jefferson who based his ideas on John Locke. One of the fundamental principles of our Declaration and Locke’s Second Treatise on Government is that all men are created equal with equal rights. A nation that treats another people as less than equal as Israel treats the Palestinians is hardly an example of Western Enlightenment thinking.

            How many times do I have to write it before it gets through your thick head, I consider Islam the most serious threat to human freedom in history.

          • Drakken

            Those of the Enlightenment where for Western Civilization and those wise men understood better than most that those enlightened principles would never work with the Islamic savage. All men are equal in western civilization, those principles don’t apply in Islamic lands and never have and never will. When you act as a savage you deserved to be treated as one, so Israel must act accordingly against the savage.

          • hiernonymous

            “There it is, you were told, and you like a good little leftist, fell for it.”

            So, in trying to determine why Palestinian Christians departed a particular area, you consider actually asking the Palestinian Christians who departed about their reasons for leaving to be “leftist?”

            Interesting.

          • Drakken

            So please enlighten the rest of us knuckledraggers with your enlightened wisdom and experience, instead of your condensation and derision.

          • hiernonymous

            Non-sequitur. You made an inane charge; own it, instead of whining.

            Though, out of curiosity, I wonder why you think it acceptable for you to incessantly spout derision for all Muslims, but you start mewling when a bit of derision is directed at you. You can dish it out, etc?

          • frjohnmorris

            I am hardly a leftist. i am quite conservative. The Enlightenment embraced the concept of natural rights and justice for all people. The treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis hardly shows the influence of the Enlightenment.

          • Drakken

            All cultures and religions are all not all equal. Lessons in history ought to have taught you that by now.

          • hiernonymous

            “So your little narrative of the jews persecuting them doesn’t wash since the Pali Authority runs the areas and no Israel.”
            Wrong yet again. Nazareth is in Israel, falling within the North District of Israel. It’s miles from any territory governed by the PA.

            For someone who’s been there, done that, and got the postcard, you’re getting an awful lot of really basic stuff wrong.

          • RonMar

            Johnny, what part of the following did you not get?

            1) I am in the Middle East right now on my 15th relatively long-term stay since ’04 alone,

            2) have and visit here with Arab Christians, Muslims, Jews, Druze, Orthodox, etc. friends,

            3) There is no such thing as Palestine, never has been, not likely ever to be, thus no such thing as a Palestinian.

            4. Every time you use the word “Zionists” you show you are suicidal and do not care for anyone – your family, friends, self, etc. – and you aid, abet and assist Arab Muslims/Islamic jihad terrorists.

            5. How arrogant and ignorant of you to say you know more than me “because you are a priest ….,” and

            6. that I hate ….

          • frjohnmorris

            I thought that you were a Christian, Christians do not hate. Whatever you call the place, the historical fact is that the Zionists have displaced the native population and deprived them of their civil rights. I use the word “Zionist” because I do not blame all Jews for the crimes of Zionism, because not all Jews are Zionists. The people of that particular region call themselves Palestinians. It is not your place to tell them what to call themselves. They are human beings and deserve to be treated as such. If you approve of the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Zionists, you are certainly not a Christian. The Greek Orthodox Church has existed in the Holy Land since the time of Christ. We do not need American Protestants going to the canonical territory of our Church and trying to take our people away from the Church founded by Our Lord to join your sect.

          • defcon 4

            The native population are Arabs. Arabs that invaded, conquered and squatted on lands not theirs.
            BTW, by your reasoning, shouldn’t Medina be given back to the Jews?

          • frjohnmorris

            The Romans drove the Jews out of the Holy Land not the Arabs. Just because Jews lived there 2,000 years ago does not give them the right to go there in the 20th century and claim ownership of the land. I recognize the reality of Israel and think that those Arabs who think that they can or should destroy Israel are wrong. What is needed is a fair division of the land with two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. However, the Palestinian state must be given true self government and not be forced to live under Israeli domination.

          • Drakken

            There will never ever be two states period, the arab muslims want the jews dead, therefore a two state solution is nothing but a pipe dream.

          • frjohnmorris

            The two state solution is the only rational solution to the Arab Israeli conflict. The radical Muslims will have to be crushed and forced to give up terrorism, but the settlers will have to leave the Occupied Territories.

          • Drakken

            Muslim and rational in the same sentence is an oxymoron. They are not occupied territories padre, they are conquered land, big difference.

          • frjohnmorris

            According to the UN and the United States, they are Occupied Territories.

          • Drakken

            The UN is less than useless, wherever have they done any good in the last 50 years? As for the US, it depends on which administration your talking about.

          • RonMar

            If they are “Occupied Territories” they are Israeli, Hebrew, Jewish territories occupied illegally by Arab Muslims and others who have no right or claim to be there.
            You know that, yet you deny it. Shame on you johnny.

          • frjohnmorris

            The Palestinians do have a right to be there. Their ancestors have lived there for hundreds of years. They are occupied illegally and contrary to international law by Israel. Just because Jews lived there 2,000 years ago does not give them a legitimate claim to those lands today. I do not make a claim to lands where my ancestor lived 2,000 years ago. What makes the Jews any different?

          • Drakken

            There are no fakestinians and there never were, Good God padre, your a tad thick. they are either from Jordan or Egypt.

          • RonMar

            The Jews have lived in their homeland – The Holy Land of Israel – for over 4000 years, johnny, and you know it.
            You also know and fear the answers to the questions I have asked you that you persistently, consistently and adamantly refuse to answer. You can’t accept truth, facts, real history and current events and hold the biases, prejudices against Jews, Israel and Israelis that you do.

          • frjohnmorris

            Jews have not been a majority in the Holy Land for 2,000 years. In America, we believe in majority rule. Even today the majority of people living under Israeli control are not Jews. There is only one rational solution, the two state solution. Even most Jews realize that. I agree that Hamas and the radical Muslims must be crushed and forced to recognize the reality of the existence of the Jewish state of Israel, but the opposite it is true, the Jews must recognize the reality of the Palestinian people and reach a compromise with them that will end these senseless wars and bring peace to this region.

          • RonMar

            There is no reputable source of population and demographics that supports your Islamic jihadist propaganda lie. The following is only one example of thousands who nail you as a blatant liar:
            https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html
            You must be too stupid to understand, even after I have explained it to you repeatedly why a two-state solution is no longer possible.
            Obviously you have no clue about what the Bible says on peace in the Middle East.
            Jesus and Jesus only will bring real and lasting peace to this region after He returns.

          • RonMar

            Shut up with your nonsense. I explained to you it is not possible. Even small, pre-school children understand the explanation. You cannot or do not, are unwilling to do so. Why?

          • frjohnmorris

            Because I find your argument nonsense and hate filled. Christ taught us to love our enemies. That means that we have to even love Muslims. Despite your accusations, I do not hate Jews. I just want them to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinians to be treated as people.

          • RonMar

            So come, johnny, join me in “Palestine” right now. We can go love some Muslims together. LOL. I expect to be here doing exactly that and sharing with them the love of the Lord, God, Jesus the Christ through the rest of this month and almost all of next month.
            Give me your arrival time at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. I will meet you or have someone do so and bring you to me, all at your expense of course.
            Wait … I believe you turned down that invite before with some weak, cowardly excuses.
            Anyway let me know. I’ll see you in Tel Aviv or elsewhere in your “Palestine,” my Israel when you get here johnny.
            We can love Muslims, Druze, Jews, Christians, atheists, agnostics, you name it and share the Good News Gospel message with them together.

          • frjohnmorris

            Not having the money and not being to walk except for relatively small distances because I am recovering from a knee replacement is not a cowardly excuse. If I am ever able to travel to the Holy Land, I will do so on a religious pilgrimage as a Greek Orthodox Priest.

          • RonMar

            I knew you would not come here johnny and see for yourself what a liar you are as you make your weak excuses and blurt out Islamic jihadist propaganda lies again.

          • frjohnmorris

            One does not have to travel to Palestine to know the truth about the evils of one people oppressing another.

          • RonMar

            There is no such thing as a Palestine, never has been, is not now and is not likely ever to be. Answer my questions johnny, and you will see your own lies confront you right in your own face.

          • Drakken

            The only evil ones are those unter mensch palis, and your leftist ivory tower for which you refuse to leave nor believe with your own eyes speaks volumes!

          • Drakken

            That is what I love about you whacademics, all about theory and feelings instead of cold hard facts and logic. Never mind the facts on the ground don’t quite reach the ivory tower your occupying. Your assumption is that the muslim arabs are rational, when it is as clear as day they are not and never will be.

          • frjohnmorris

            Radical Islam is not rational, neither is radical Zionism. Both are equally bad. Both fail to recognize the human rights that are considered necessary on the basis of our American values. If we were to apply the same principles under which the United States operates to Israel, the Zionist state would be illegal and unconstitutional. We gave up racism a long time ago. Basic American principles teach that all men are created equal and must have equal rights. We would not allow a state to declare itself a white Christian state under our constitutional principles. Why should American support a nation that does not adhere to the same principles that we do?

          • Drakken

            There you going using the words radical islam again, when it is as plain on the nose on your face that it is islam period. Trying to impose western notions of human rights and principles to Islamic savages is an exercise in stupidity and futility. Oh that is right, you have never been there and understand the situation far far better than us mere mortals that have been and continue to be there to see it first hand. Keep buying the leftist narrative of Israel bad, muslim palis always good.

          • frjohnmorris

            Are you so stupid that you have not yet figured out that I am just as strongly against radical Islam as I am radical Zionism., Once more., I am a Christian and am concerned with the rights of the Palestinian Christians which are being violated by both sides. i am also furious that our government is assisting the radical Muslim forces in Syria.

            This whole discussion got started because I pointed out the persecution of Eastern Christians by the Crusades.

            If you are really worried about the spread of radical Islam you should communicate with your members of Congress and ask them to oppose Obama’s pro Muslim policies.

          • Drakken

            There is no fucking moral equivalence between islam and the Judeo/Christian tradition padre, to even say the Jews are in the same league as those islamaniacs is an abomination and makes you a heretic.

          • frjohnmorris

            I do not think that you are qualified to judge me an heretic. About you, I can say without hesitation that your attitudes are un Christian. Christians do not believe in war, much less war of conquest. Nor do they believe that one people have a right to dominate another people against their will. You really need to read the Gospels and pay attention to the teaching of Christ, especially, “love your enemies.”

          • Drakken

            Well padre, you go ahead and be slaughtered, in Christianity it is your God given right to defend yourselves from aggression. Instead of being a martyr for the cause, I call you useful idiots cannon fodder and Darwin Award winners, I’ll light a candle for you. Maybe you can say hi to Rachel (st pancake) Corrie for me.

          • defcon 4

            I smell a lying muslime rat.

          • RonMar

            Clueless, a liar or both. Take your choice johnny.

          • RonMar

            You poor, ;pathetic creature you can’t even read English. I did not say “I hate.” I said you say, “I hate” about me. It is clearly you who hate Jews and Protestant Christians, and favor Islamic jihadists with your propaganda lies.
            Your arguments that people can call themselves whatever they want and designate someone else’s land theirs are ridiculous. Answer my questions about who first used the term Palestine for the area, when, where, how and most importantly why? You claim to be such a great historian those are easy questions.
            I don’t approve of the oppression of anyone, but you do of the Jews and Protestant Christians. How dare you say I am not a Christian. You have no authority over me with your many silly titles, ridiculous rituals, clothing and nonsense., Johnny.
            If the Greek Orthodox Church existed at the “time of Christ” is was not Christian, could not have been. Christians and Christianity came after Jesus the Christ was crucified, resurrected and risen and so also did Christian churches.
            For you this is all about a power struggle – “the Greek Orthodox Church has existed in the Holy Land since the time of Christ. We do not need American Protestants going to the canonical territory of our Church and trying to take our people away from the Church founded by Our Lord to join your sect.”
            Finally, after all of your ridiculous posts, your truth comes out of your mouth, from your fingertips. With your hateful attitudes and behaviors toward Jews, Christians and favoritism toward Muslims, Johnny, expect your kind to be spit on, beaten, beheaded and otherwise done away with as you struggle for power over what??
            Where in your sect is The Way, The Truth, The Light???

          • frjohnmorris

            I do not support oppression of Jews or Protestants. The Jews lost the land 2,000 years ago. The Greek Orthodox Church was founded by Christ and His Apostles. It was in Antioch, the home of my branch of the Orthodox Church that Christians were first called Christians. That is historic fact. I do object to American Protestant missionaries who go to Orthodox lands and try to take people away from our Church. What is wrong with that? Do you like it if another Church takes people away from your Church?

            I have discussed this with several Rabbis and sooner or later they have all agreed with me that the only solution is a compromise based on the two state solution. That is also the official position of the US government and is shared by many Jews who realize that the time has come for both sides to stop fighting and work out a compromise.by dividing the land into two states.

          • Drakken

            You make the huge mistake of thinking that there will be a two state solution when it is made impossible by Islamic intransigence and their desire of once Islamic lands, always Islamic lands. Sooner or later the muslims are going to force Israel to take the whole bloody thing and let the arabs cry about it.

          • frjohnmorris

            You are completely unrealistic. What will happen to 4 million Palestinians? If Israel simply annexes the Occupied Territories, the Palestinians will soon outnumber the Jews in Israel. You know that the Jews do not want that. The Jews also cannot deny them basic civil rights without destroying their claim to be a democracy. The Jews would never do that. They cannot drive 4 million people out of the Occupied Territories or kill them. The world will not stand by and let Israel do that. Besides, I do not believe that the Jews who themselves were victims of Nazi death camps would commit genocide. Israel has no real choice but to accept the existence of a Palestinian state along side Israel. The Muslims also have no choice but to face realty and recognize Israel.

          • RonMar

            The Jews never lost the land. You are a liar. The Holy Land has been peopled continuously by Hebrews, Jews since they entered the Land across the Jordan River led by Joshua. Some lived there even before the Exodus from Egypt.
            You know nothing of real history of the region or the people. You are a base liar.
            It is an outrage to say “the Jews lost the land ….” and nothing but an Islamic jihadist propaganda lie.
            To whom do you claim “the Jews lost the land.” how, when exactly???
            Jesus the Christ was never reported in the Bible to have been in Greece. Which of His Apostles do you claim founded the Greek Orthodox church, where, when, how-by what means? Who exactly by name established it? Who led it initially?
            FYI no Christian church was established until after the crucifixion, resurrection and rising of Jesus the Christ into Heaven to prepare a place for His people.
            FYI, I want nothing to do with you or your people. Apparently neither does God.
            If “my church” is so weak as to lose people to other faith beliefs, denominations and churches, so be it.
            I doubt you have discussed anything with any Rabbi. Try to remember you have said you have never been here, in the Land, where I am right now, with the Israelis, with Rabbis, Imams, Priests, Reverends, etc.
            You are a proven liar and islam jihadist propaganda lies spreader.
            A two-state solution is not possible. it is ridiculous on the face of it, and your mentioning it proves you are clueless and a liar. Consider these facts, oh one of many titles and a Ph.D.:
            - Hamas won the election among the people who call themselves “Palestinians.”
            - The Israelis – the Jews you hate – had given the Gaza Strip to the “Palestinians” for peace.
            - Hamas took the Gaza Strip by violent force including horrible murders of their opposition “Palestinians.”
            - Hamas has controlled the Gaza Strip since then.
            - The “Palestinian” Authority, “Palestinian” Liberation Organization controls the West Bank.
            - The Israelis – Jews you hate – control the rest of Israel.
            So you tell me, oh wise man, smarter than everyone else here, how is your “two-state solution” even remotely possible? It is not!
            So also is Jerusalem already divided and has been so for centuries.
            You are ignorant and arrogant. You know nothing true, factual, historically correct or of current events in Israel. You are an Islamic jihadist propaganda lies spreading liar.

          • frjohnmorris

            On the contrary you are the one who knows nothing about the history of the Middle East. There has always been a small Jewish community, but the majority of the people living in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories since the expulsion of the Jews by the Romans in AD 70 have been Palestinians until they were driven out of their homes and land with the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948. A very high percentage of the people living in the area originally designated as Israel by the UN were Palestinians. Today, I read an article from the Jewish Daily Forward that states that the majority of people living in Israel and the Occupied Territories are Palestinians. Israel has no choice but to accept the two state solution because if they annex the Occupied Territories Israel will cease to be a Jewish state. http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/184245/jews-now-minority-in-israel-and-territories/
            For a person who claims to be a missionary, you sure have a limited knowledge of the New Testament. Read the Book of Acts, it tell all about the founding of my Church by the Apostles. St Paul brought the Gospel to Greece. St. Dionysius was the first Bishop of Athens. Sts. Barnabus and Paul founded the Church of Antioch, my branch of the Orthodox Church. St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch.
            For a person who claims to be a Christian you sure express a lot of hatred. You better go back and the read the Gospels, because you have completely missed the point of Christ’s teaching, which is love even for one’s enemies.

          • RonMar

            johnny you can flail around, drag out all the Islamic jihad propaganda lies from all of their sources that you want, but you have lost the argument. You really blew it when you admitted finally – that you do “object to American Protestant missionaries who go to Orthodox lands and try to take people away from our Church.”
            Obviously you are not bright enough to realize that exposes you, your true feelings, concerns, lines you up with the Muslims/Islamic jihadists and in fact lays a claim of the Orthodox church to the Holy Land of the Hebrews/Jews just as the Islamic jihadists make their competing claims.
            The only thing I ever want to hear from you in future posts are your adult answers – not attacks on me – and without your reliance on Islamic jihadist propaganda lies and terminology to my by now longstanding questions to you that you have refused to answer:
            - Who first used the word Palestine for the Holy Land of the Jews, when, where, how and most importantly why?
            - To whom do you claim “the Jews lost the land.” how, when exactly?
            - Why did the Arab Muslims refuse to establish in 1948 a Palestine pursuant to UN Resolution 181 of 1947 when the Israelis, Jews established Modern Israel from Ancient Israel?
            - Which of the Apostles of Jesus do you claim founded the Greek Orthodox church, where, when, how-by what means? Who exactly by name established it? Who led it initially?
            - Since it obviously came after the establishment of Ancient Israel as the homeland of the Hebrews/Jews what difference does your answer to the preceding questions make anyway?
            This is yet another of your Islamic jihadist propaganda statements that has nothing to do with my explanation to you of why a two-state solution is no longer possible since Hamas Islamic jihadist Arab Muslims controls the Gaza Strip taken by violent, murderous force from the “Palestinian“ Authority/PLO Arab Muslims, the latter controls the West Bank, and Israel controls the rest of Israel –
            “Israel has no choice but to accept the two state solution because if they annex the Occupied Territories Israel will cease to be a Jewish state.”
            See, johnny it is not a matter of Israel’s choice, to choose or not to choose but rather of warring factions of your cohorts – Islamic jihadist Arab Muslims – who have in effect precluded a two-state solution from possibility – three-state, maybe yes, but two-state no! The Islamic jihadists won’t allow it.
            Also don’t you ever forget Jerusalem is, has been divided, fragmented really for centuries, and is not likely to be whole again until near the time of Jesus returning, at that moment or shortly thereafter. Your Orthodox clowns fight among themselves in Jerusalem, Bethlehem too.
            Make no mistake, have no doubts I am a Christian missionary with sufficient knowledge, understanding, wisdom, love of God and all people, will, strength, heart, mind and soul to serve the Lord, God, Jesus the Christ as He called and equipped me to do and provides Holy Spirit guidance and protection for me to do.
            I have read all of the Bible many times johnny, and with understanding too.
            I serve as a Christian missionary to Muslims, Islamic jihadists and you say silly things like this about me – “For a person who claims to be a Christian you sure express a lot of hatred. You better go back and the read the Gospels, because you have completely missed the point of Christ’s teaching, which is love even for one’s enemies.”
            Johnny, you are in serious need of psychiatric care. You are trying to project your own traits, attitudes and behaviors onto me and others. GFY – F=Forgive, figure out the rest oh man of so many titles and your degrees in which you take such great pride.
            I await your answers to my questions without your dragging anymore red herrings through the forum.

          • frjohnmorris

            Your attitude does not show the love that Christ commands us to have for others. In fact you show the worst sin of all pride. The tone of your messages. The refusal to address me properly and respectfully as Father, and your total lack of concern for the welfare of 4 million Palestinians shows that you are Christian in name only. No true Christian can have the hatred you have towards the Palestinian people or any people for that matter.

            You accuse me of Muslim sympathies. You are dead wrong. I am furious at Obama for supporting the radical Muslims who are attacking Christians in Syria. Yesterday the leadership of the rebels declared that their goal is to turn Syria into an Islamic state governed by Sharia Law.

          • Drakken

            The fake Palis have made their collective jihadist bed, may they lie in it. Your open sympathy for a bunch of savages belies your true stance. May God have mercy on your soul padre.

          • Drakken

            You openly side with muslim jihadist as a dhimmi, says it all really, and if your Greek Orthadox, they are rabidly anti-islam since they do not forget their persecution by islam.

          • frjohnmorris

            I know all about the treat of radical Islam to my Church. That is why I am so strongly against Obama’s policy of supporting the rebels who are actively persecuting Syrian Christians. How can you claim to oppose radical Islam and support Obama’s policies that favor radical Islam?

          • Drakken

            I don’t support Comrade Obummer policies period, as far as I am concerned, if you don’t fight for your right to exist, you deserve your fate. The fact that one side of muslims is killing an other sect of muslims is fine by me.

          • frjohnmorris

            What about the Christians being persecuted by the Muslims? Do you care about them or do you hate all Arabs? Check the facts. Muslims persecute Christians in every place that they conquer.

          • Drakken

            When the arab Christians won’t fight to save themselves from islam and then turn around and blame the Israeli’s for their problems, I am fresh out of sympathy. Your problem is that you buy into the Islamic propaganda being fed to you by the fakestinians and frankly I have little time nor patience for utter stupidity. I have been in the ME/far east and North Africa for over 20 years and openly despise those savages.

          • frjohnmorris

            I am a Christian. Christians cannot by loyal to Christ and despise anyone. I never have discussed this issue with a Muslim. I have only spoken with Palestinian Christians. Palestinian Christians are not terrorists and do not support terrorism. They just want to live in peace without oppression from either the Zionists or the Muslims.

          • Drakken

            Well my suggestion would be that you get down out of your ivory tower of academia and go there see yourself instead of falling for the Islamic propaganda that you take at face value.

          • hiernonymous

            Nothing in your post responded to anything he actually said.

            And as you well know, I have been to see for myself, and find your viewpoint paranoid and unjustified. If you think differently, you’re going to have to do better than an appeal to authority or ad hominem.

          • RonMar

            hier, I am here right now on my 15th relatively long-term visit since ’04 alone, and tell you flat out, you are wrong in every aspect of your post.
            Since you have entered you answer the questions I have been putting to frjohnny. I want to see you and him put up or shut up.

          • Drakken

            I see the arab muslim world with nothing more than cold, harsh, brutal Teutonic logic and reality. I have little time or patience for people who never been there, done that, got the postcard and a few bullet and shrapnel holes to boot, to lecture us who have first hand reality based experience instead of the arab muslim propaganda being pumped out by less than useful idiots trying to fit a round peg into a square whole narrative.

          • hiernonymous

            Teutonic? Really? I thought all this time you were American. Most people I know who pat themselves on the back for their Teutonic logic aren’t particularly Teutonic or logical.

            Getting shot at makes you an expert in getting shot at, not an expert on Islam. It made me smarter in a lot of ways, but that wasn’t one of them. The whole “seen the elephant” posture may play in Peoria, but if you want to claim that your experience gives you special insight into the culture, you’ll have to be a bit more specific about what that experience was and how you learned the lessons you imply that you’ve learned.

          • Drakken

            Let’s see, 1st gen American, Prussian father, Austrian Hapsburg mother, so yes Teutonic logic over your Arabic thinking really does carry the day over Arabic impulses, thanks for asking, I don’t live in Peoria, but I was a fed in Chicago, again thanks for asking.
            Yes my experiences immersed in the cultures around the middle/far east and Africa does give me special insight in languages, customs and thought process of how the arab centered mind works, thinks and reacts, it’s called paying attention. Again thanks for asking.
            Perhaps I’ll run into you over there in a few short weeks when I return.

          • hiernonymous

            “…so yes Teutonic logic”

            Ironically, there were two issues – ‘Teutonic’ and ‘logical’ – you addressed only one, and concluded that you had addressed both. This is an elementary error in logic, which you offer as an example of … your logical thinking. (You are probably also aware that while you go on about “Teutonic logic,” the Teutons are even more strongly associated with Romantik.

            “Yes my experiences immersed in the cultures around the middle/far east and Africa does give me special insight in languages, customs and thought process of how the arab centered mind works, thinks and reacts…”

            I’d agree with that – but that’s not what you said. You were bragging about bullets and shrapnel; I pointed out that combat experience does not give one insight into a culture. (I would tell you that the country I gained the least insight into was the one in which I was most heavily involved in combat operations.) Nothing in your response suggests otherwise; you’ve simply shifted your ground. The better way to establish your logical credentials is to demonstrate them, not assert them.

            “Perhaps I’ll run into you over there in a few short weeks when I return.” It’s hard to say, without knowing where “there” is, or what you actually do.

            Bottom line: If you want to make some arguments based on “Teutonic logic” and utilizing insights, then make them – but “no Muslim can be trusted, and I know, ‘cos Daddy was German and I’ve been to the Middle East” isn’t going to cut it. Instead of asserting the experiences that led you to such conclusions, describe them, so we can figure out whether your conclusions are justified, and perhaps offer some counterexamples if appropriate. You’re attempting to argue from authority, but what you’ve described so far isn’t, well, much authority.

          • Drakken

            So please explain to the rest of us infidel knuckledraggers where we are wrong? It would seem as an arabist yourself that you would bring us more enlightenment on the situation instead of your condensation and criticism of me? So by all means, enlighten us with your wisdom and vast experience.

          • hiernonymous

            “So please explain to the rest of us infidel knuckledraggers where we are wrong?”

            Sure. Where you are wrong is in your rabid hatred and fear of all Muslims. When you stop trying to dehumanize them, and start looking at them as people, with all the good and bad of people everywhere, you’ll give your knuckles time to scab over. When you offer inanities such as “no Muslim can be trusted,” you reveal yourself to be a bigot, not an analyst and not an authority. No such generalization is true of any sizable group of humans. Not sure why that is so hard for you to grasp.

            “…instead of your condensation and criticism of me…”

            I criticize you because you try to peddle a pretty pedestrian background into Middle East expertise, and parlay that into a vehicle for your bile and bigotry. When you try to argue from authority, you invite challenges to that authority.

            And for the sake of Sweet Baby Jesus, condensation is water vapor returning to liquid form. The word you’re looking for is condescension.

          • defcon 4

            I’ve spoken to “Palestinian” Christians. What? All two of them?

          • frjohnmorris

            There are about 500,000 members of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. I do not know how many Palestinian Orthodox there are in America, but would estimate that there are at least several thousand. Since Jerusalem has no jurisdiction in America, the Palestinians usually join Antiochian Orthodox parishes because we represent Arab Orthodoxy in the United States.

          • RonMar

            You’re letting your bias, prejudice ooze out again, johnny. Better put a sock on it before you bleed all over the forum your true feelings and the reasons for them, Sieg Heil!

          • frjohnmorris

            Nazism is not funny. It was an evil demonic ideology. To accuse a man who wrote a book opposing the holocaust deniers of sympathy for Nazism is a joke.

          • RonMar

            johnny, your Germanic feelings toward Jews seep through in your posts as does your favoritism for Islamic jihadists. Don’t waste your time trying to blame me and others for you, your words and behaviors.

          • frjohnmorris

            It is totally irrational to accuse a Christian, especially a Christian with strong ties with Arab Christians with sympathy to Islamic jihadists. I agree that the greatest contemporary threat to human freedom is radical Islam. But I am also realistic. We cannot conquer the Muslim world. We have to contain it just as we had to contain Communism. We certainly should not support the radical Muslims as Obama is doing in Syria. Instead of wasting your time trying to convince me of something that I already know, spend your time opposing the policies of the Obama administration that favor the radical Muslims.

          • RonMar

            It is totally rational to call you what you are based on your posts of Islamic jihadist propaganda lies.
            The Muslims will be defeated. FYI, good has always prevailed over evil, johnny.
            I was opposing Obama when he first appeared on the national scene at the ’04 DNC. Where was that johnny? Where were you then, johnny, and what were you doing, in particular about Obama?
            I am surprised to see you post this – ” Instead of wasting your time trying to convince me of something that I already know.” – So, you already know you are an aider, abetter, supporter of and apologist for Islamic jihadists, a Jew-Israeli- and Israel-hater, not a Christian but rather an unsaved lost soul, pathetic liar and hateful creature. Amazing.

          • Drakken

            There is the key word, arab orthodoxy. Not Greek or Russian Orthodoxy as written.

          • frjohnmorris

            We actually call ourselves Antiochian Orthodox because we represent the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, not Arab Orthodox. I only used the word Arab to designate the origins or our particular branch of the Orthodox Church in the Arabic speaking world. We are also called Greek Orthodox, but we are not Greeks. In Arabic we are called Roman Orthodox because of our association with the Eastern Roman Empire. My parish and most parishes use little or no Arabic, but a parish with many recent immigrants uses more Arabic. Some parishes use no Arabic at all. It all depends on the make up of the parish.

          • RonMar

            I discuss it with Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze, you name it, anyone who will listen. You don’t discuss it period, you don’t listen. There is no discussion with you. It’s all you, your titles and degrees, pride, air of superiority and condemnation putting down of others including the entire Jewish race, ethnic group and faith.

          • frjohnmorris

            There is no discussion with you because you are wrong. I do not hate Jews. I do disagree with the Jewish religion because I am a Christian, but do not hate Jews. I only want them to treat the Palestinian people fairly and humanly. Why is it that anyone who does not agree with Zionism is always accused of hating Jews? I do not hate Muslims, Islam, but do consider Islam a religion with a history of hatred and oppression of non-Muslims. You are the one filled with un-Christian hatred.

          • RonMar

            There is plenty of discussion with me, just not you with me. You waste too much time telling everyone about your titles, education and how right you are while others are so wrong, while you refuse to answer my easy questions to you.
            Obviously you don’t understand that all Christians are in fact Judeo-Christians as I explained it to you.
            You are also so pumped full of Islamic jihadist propaganda lies that you repeat, you say such silly things as ” I am a Christian, but do not hate Jews. I only want them to treat the Palestinian people fairly and humanly.” And you ask such silly questions as “Why is it that anyone who does not agree with Zionism is always accused of hating Jews?

            You said, you “do not hate Muslims, Islam,” as if anyone has accused you of hating them. In fact johnny we have been pointing out to you how you aid, abort, apologize for and support them. All told your posts sound quite daft.
            You also said you “do consider Islam a religion with a history of hatred and oppression of non-Muslims.”
            I do not even consider Islam a religion but rather an evil, oppressive, violent political power and control system to which Mohammad cobbled badly elements of Paganism, Judaism and Christianity to make it appear to be a religion and one holier than all others. I can prove that to you by a quick, easy analysis of the Five Pillars of Islam as taught to me by Muslims all of my adult life so far.

            You say I “am the one filled with un-Christian hatred.” – Yeah, right, sure I am, and you are not. That’s the reason I’m here in The Holy Land for the 15th time since ’04 alone on relatively long-time visits working with Christians, Jews, Muslims and others, and you are not here, have never been and not likely ever to be here. LOL.

          • frjohnmorris

            I basically agree with your analysis of Islam. I would go even further. As St. John of Damascus wrote, “Islam is the forerunner of the anti-Christ.” But the way that the Zionists have treated the Christians in the Holy Land is equally bad with the way that the radical Muslims treat them. I do not have to go to the Middle East to understand what is taking place there. I have spoken with many people, both Palestinian and non Palestinian who have been there. I have also read my scholarly historical works on the history of the modern Middle East. If you had not called me stupid, I would not have felt it necessary to inform you of my academic credentials. Thus far you have not shown that you have any academic credentials that qualify you as an expert on the Middle East. You think that you can bring Christianity to the Middle East. I have news for you Christianity was born in the Middle East and has existed there since the time of Christ. Support the authentic Church that is already there as I do.

          • RonMar

            You haven’t even seen my analysis of Islam.
            “I do not have to go to the Middle East to understand what is taking place there.” – That is an outrageously funny remark made by a rank idiot. Its stupidity is exceeded though by this remark – “I have also read my scholarly historical works on the history of the modern Middle East.

            This is yet another of your painfully obvious, blatant lies -
            “Thus far you have not shown that you have any academic credentials that qualify you as an expert on the Middle East.”
            No, I don’t think I “can bring Christianity to the Middle East” and never said so. Using the propaganda straw man technique you set up that straw man.
            “Support the authentic Church that is already there as I do.” – I am here, johnny, supporting the authentic places of worship and worshipers. Where are you, johnny? Exactly how are you supporting anyone here but the Islamic jihadists?

          • frjohnmorris

            Obviously you have not spoken with many Palestinian Christians, because if you had your whole attitude would be different. Your hatred for the Palestinian people shows that you are a Christian in name only. You have also shown your almost total ignorance of the New Testament. The Church is the true Israel and Christians are the true sons of Abraham..

          • RonMar

            johnny, I have become convinced in my professional opinion that you are quite insane, so I am not wasting anymore of my time with you. Good luck, poor cripple.

          • RonMar

            Truth be known I believe you voted for Obama in ’08 and in 2012 and still support him except on the one policy followed by his illegal actions that is getting your people murdered and your churches destroyed even as we post.

          • frjohnmorris

            In that case you would be wrong. I voted for the Republican candidate in both elections. I have nothing but contempt for Obama. I think that he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in the history of our country. He is not only committed to a far left ideology, he is also incompetent.

          • RonMar

            Good. That’s one point for you. The first thing you have posted that redeems you in any way.

        • defcon 4

          I almost believed you until you got to the part about “Zionist oppression”.

          • frjohnmorris

            Why is it that Americans do not recognize the rights of the Palestinian people? Have you ever spoken with a Palestinian Christian about what the Zionists have done to the Palestinian people? Have you read an unbiased scholarly study of the history of the modern Middle East and the policies of the state of Israel towards the Palestinians? Have you ever studied the terrorism of the Stern Gang or the Irgun? Do you know of the massacre of Deir Yassin? Look them up and you will see what I mean.

          • defcon 4

            Deir Yassin was a village being used as a military outpost by the muslimes. They had fired on Jewish patrols FIRST.
            I don’t give a FFF about the palesimians, who are nothing but f’ing Arabs.

          • frjohnmorris

            Even if that were true, that does not justify the massacre of the whole village. Palestinians are people as are Arabs. Many of them are Christians. Your racist comments are bigoted and narrow minded.

          • defcon 4

            I don’t think the whole village was massacred. They weren’t innocent either they were harboring muslime mujhadeen.

          • frjohnmorris

            That is not true. Men, women and children were killed in a village that had lived in peace with its Jewish neighbors before. The incident spread terror through the Palestinian community causing many of them to flee their homes lest they fall victim to the Irgun and Stern Gang. Read the history of the Middle East from any unbiased scholarly source and you will see how much pro-Zionists propaganda has been fed to the American people.

          • defcon 4

            The muslimes who comprised Deir Yassin fired first. They wouldn’t surrender, they continued fighting, so they got what they deserved Ahmed.

          • frjohnmorris

            Nothing justified the massacre of the people of Deir Yassin.You are simply repeating Zionist propaganda.

          • Drakken

            Coming from a dhimmi Islamic apologist, that is rich and the hypocrisy monumental. The palis deserve everything they get and more.

          • Drakken

            Your openly siding with those Islamic savages is very telling, the fact that you would sacrifice the Israeli’s in order to save yourselves is utterly despicable. It is obvious that you have lived under the thumb of islam for too long and frankly are not worth saving since you won’t save yourselves. Bloody pathetic.

          • frjohnmorris

            What is pathetic is that you obviously have never spoken with a Palestinian Christian about what their life is like under Zionism. I have and know that Zionism is almost as oppressive as Islam.

          • Drakken

            Let me be perfectly clear. EFF those pali savages period! there is no moral equivalency between islam and Judeo/Christianity period you bloody Quisling dhimmi. Side with evil, sooner or later you have to pay the fiddler, the devil himself.

          • frjohnmorris

            I agree, but wonder why you do not defend the rights of Arab Christians who are persecuted by both Muslims and Zionists. By supporting the rebels in Syria, Obama is siding with evil, because if they are victorious Syria will become an Islamic state governed by Sharia Law.

          • Drakken

            The fact that you have bought the Islamic line that the jews are persecuting those poor pali savages speaks volumes about your utter stupidity and the fact that you have never been there speaks volumes, you have proved ole PT Barnum right, there is a sucker born every minute.

          • frjohnmorris

            Palestinian Christians are not savages. in fact, they are some of the most highly educated people in the world. When they come here they all succeed because they are intelligent and are hard workers. You never see an Arab American Christian on welfare.

          • Drakken

            The fact that they openly support their Islamic counterparts brooks zero sympathy from me.

          • frjohnmorris

            Do you think that I really care what you think? I have spent way too much time answering your insane posts. I shall waste no more time on you. People like you are why the Middle East is the mess that it is. You are no better than the Islamic jihadists that you criticize.

          • Drakken

            It doesn’t matter what I think, simple logic and facts are what matter. It is your unrealistic and wishful thinking that are the crux of the problem.

          • frjohnmorris

            The crux of the problem is your hatred towards Arabs and your failure to recognize that they are people with rights. You are just as bad as the Islamic jihadists. It is extremists like you on both sides who have prevented peace between the Jews and the Palestinians. Your writings are the best proof possible that I am right about Zionist extremism being just as unreasonable as radical Islam.

          • defcon 4

            You have about as much to do w/Christianity as a mosque.

          • Drakken

            It comes down to them, or us, and the bottom line is, love us and ours, eff them and theirs. My writings are defense of western civilization against Islamic aggression period, and make no mistake, the Israeli’s are of and part of western civilization, the arabs no matter the stripe are not and never will be period! There are not enough arab Christians to make one iota of difference, they are being slaughtered by the muslims and you want to talk of peace and love to a bunch of sub human savages who want you dead or living beneath their mailed fist. That is what I really do enjoy about the weak and pathetic clergy today, they will live on their knees in the name of peace and tolerance even if it kills them, instead of defending the faith and faithful, I call it pure unadultered cowardice and suicide.

          • frjohnmorris

            Your comments are racist. No one is a sub human savage. It is that kind of attitude that feeds Islamic radicalism. I know much more than you do about how oppressive it is for a Christian to live under Islam. If you want to do something, do your best to convince your representatives in Congress not to allow Obama to bomb Syria. If he does, the Islamic radicals will take over Syria and turn it into an Islamist sate. Then they will go after Lebanon. If you want to stop the radical Muslims, stop them before they take over Syria. However, they are receiving aid and support from the Obama administration,but he is told us that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate organization. Look what has happened to the Christians in Egypt.

            You have to be realistic. If Israel annexes the Occupied Territories, the Palestinians will out number the Jews. That is why if you really support Israel, as a Jewish state, you should support a compromise that will set up two states, a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. That is the only rational solution to this problem.

          • Drakken

            Racist no, realist and western culturalist yes. Not all people and cultures are equal and never have been, if arab muslim culture is equal to ours, how come they are still in the bloody dark ages? While the west has given you everything you enjoy in the 21st century today? Appeasement as you advocate in the face of Islamic aggression only gets you slaughtered by the savages. You know exactly jacksh** about what is going on in the west bank and gaza because you get your information from 3rd hand Christian subjugated dhimmis who take the islamist line. The one thing I know for an absolute fact is that there will never ever be a 2 state final solution, period. The muslims never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and they without any doubt will start another intifada and hopefully the Israeli’s will quit effing around with them and finally wipe them out for good. Geez whiz golly padre, you have never been there, while I have been in the ME/far east and North Africa for over 20 years and know the major players in the region and you know more than me? Priceless! Let me give you a little advice padre, never trust an arab with the truth because they lie just because they can and always do, so get out of the ivory tower of the academic community and theories and see the world and reality for what it is, and not what you wish it to be.

          • frjohnmorris

            I have my information from first hand sources. A one state that is truly democratic with equal rights for all would be the best solution, but the Zionists will not accept that because they want a Jewish state. However, the demographics are against them. If Israel simply annexed the Occupied Territories, the Palestinians would outnumber the Jews and it would not be a Jewish state.The truth is that Palestinian Christians are better off and have more rights under a secular Arab non Sharia Muslim government than they have had under the Zionists.They have more rights under the Palestinian authority in the West Bank than they have in Israel. The Gaza is a problem because of Hamas. However, the truth is that the Moussad helped organize Hamas as a rival to the Palestinian authority. An American who does not know the truth and who is as hate filled as you are towards the Palestinians is hardly qualified to make a rational judgment on the situation in the Middle East. You and the Zionists may not like it but there are over 4 million Palestinians who have natural human rights and will not simply disappear.

          • Drakken

            There is only 1 state that offers equal rights for every one and that is Israel, the west bank and Gaza are judein frei. I have no doubt that the fakestinians will have their selves a nice little intifada in the very near future and hopefully Israel finally takes the gloves off and gives them what they so richly deserve. Your falling for the Islamic propaganda line of the Christians are better off under so called secular islam than under Israel, is priceless! Your naivety is utterly astonishing and your ignorance beyond the pale. You might want t ask yourself where the heck all those Christians of Bethlehem and Nazareth who were 90% and are now less than 10 % went to? Hint they are under PA control.

          • frjohnmorris

            The Zionists have made life so difficult for people in the Occupied Territories despite the existence of the Palestinian Authority that most Christians have left rather than live under the thumb of Israel. The authority of thee PA is a fiction, because Israel keeps the Palestinians living under their control.because of Israeli checkpoints, it takes hours to travel a few miles People have died trying to get to the hospital because the Israeli authorities will not even let an ambulance pass through. A friend of mine saw the Israelis demolish a house of a family a member of which was a suspected terrorist before they would even let a crippled man come down with his wheel chair. The Isreal control has destroyed the economy of the Occupied Territories so that there are no jobs and no future for the Palestinians. In Jerusalem Jews spit on Orthodox clergy on the street and harass Christian religious processions. Had a man in one parish whose father was beaten up by Zionist thugs and died because the Jewish controlled hospital would not treat him.

          • Drakken

            The reason the Israeli’s have those check points is because your pali friends love to send jihadist suicide bombers into Israel proper and the palis could have stopped that nonsense years ago, but they refuse to do so, so whose bloody fault is that? As for a Christian being spit upon? That is the exception, not the rule, the muslim palis just kill them, suffer a slight insult or be killed? Your choice. The economy of fakestine is one of western largesse called aid, and the only ones killing the minor economy is muslim jihadist. The reason is very simple and very clear of why the Christians have left, Islamic jihadist threats, murders and extortion, not Israeli’s. But you go ahead and continue to eat up that Islamic propaganda, for they are doing a wonderful job of convincing folks like you. Don’t worry padre, the palis are about to go on a full intifada shortly, so I’ll get the bourbon and cigars and watch with amusement as they sucker gullible westerners for sympathy and scream and holler on how mean those Israeli’s are for having the gall to defend themselves. So stand by and watch the show.

          • frjohnmorris

            Because of people like you the world has had over 65 years of warfare and unrest, a people have been deprived of their human rights and overwhelmed by foreign invaders, and the ugly beast of Islamic extremism has been awakened. You are no better than a radical Islamist. You deserve each other, the radical Zionists and radical Islamists, the tragedy is that the Palestinian Christians and other innocent Palestinians are caught in the middle. otherwise, I think that the best thing would be for the sane world to let them fight it out among themselves until they both have the sense to stop and learn to live together in peace.

          • Drakken

            You whine about so called human rights when the effing muslims don’t believe in such western notions.

          • frjohnmorris

            Neither to people like you or other radical Zionists except for themselves. Muslims persecute non-Murlsims. Radical Zionists persecute non Jews. Both sides persecute Palestinian Christians. I do not believe in persecuting anyone because of their religion or ethnic heritage. I believe in our American values and democratic institutions. Unless you are a Jew, Israel is not a democratic country. Unless you are Muslim, there is no Islamic country that is democratic.

          • frjohnmorris

            I also want to add that the time has come for American to stand up and cease allowing people whose first commitment is to a foreign country to control our foreign policy. Our first concern must be our American national interests not allowing ourselves to be used by people like you whose first loyalty is not to America.

          • Drakken

            The war only ends when one side or the other wins. Your dreaming and are completely unrealistic that you honestly think that there will be peace and a two state final solution. I laugh and scoff at such utter nonsense and stupidity, because you neither understand the conflict and openly side with Islamic jihad in the face of civilization. This ends only one way, with the pali’s finally being purged so that Israel can live in peace. The Israeli’s do not control our foreign policy you leftarded whacademic. Israel is a western ally, the muslims are not and never will be, as for your defense of the Christians of the ME, it is a pathetic attempt at lip service instead of action. You wail, piss and moan about the muslims slaughtering them instead of being actively involved, and then turn around in typical leftist double speak and attempt to equate and lump the Israeli’s in with the jihadist.

          • frjohnmorris

            There really is not that much difference between the radical Zionists and the radical Muslims. They both persecute minorities and claim superiority over other peoples. You still have not explained why Jews have a right to drive the Palestinians from their homes and lands upon which their ancestors have lived for 100s of years, just because Jews lived there 2,000 years ago.

          • Drakken

            The reason the Israeli’s have a right to drive them from their homes is because the bloody savage muslims started a war against them, to the victor go the spoils.

          • frjohnmorris

            No one has a right to drive people from their homes regardless of the circumstances according to the principles of international law. The United Nations condemned the Isreaeli occupation of the West Bank long ago.

          • RonMar

            With all your titles and Ph.D. you can’t even spell “Isreaeli.” That gives you zero, 0, nada, zip, no credibility on the subject about which you are wrong anyway and a mouthpiece for Islamic jihadists against Israel, Israelis and Jews.

          • frjohnmorris

            I got a PhD in history not spelling or key boarding. I can tell you this your attitude towards the Palestinian Christians shows that you are no Christian. The more that I think about it, the more I wonder if you are not an anti-Semite kook trying to make Jews and Zionism look bad. If you represent Zionist views. Radical Zionism is truly evil. You are no better than an Islamic jihadist. At least, I do not hide behind a pseudonym but clearly identify myself and give my academic credentials.
            Look at this site and see what the jihadists are doing to Arab Christians.
            http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/64515.htm

          • RonMar

            I’ll tell you this: You are not my judge, and you are posting more and more like an incompetent boob and fraud.

            I am here, here in the Middle East, johnny. I don’t need to look at websites to know what is going on in the world. You have no clue about my views on Christians who call themselves “Palestinians.” You are so ignorant you proved in another of your posts that you are clueless as to who first used the name Palestine, when, where, how and most importantly why.

            Keep trying on that one johnny. You may get it right eventually, then be worth my wasting more time posting back and forth with you.

            We might even be able to take up some of my other questions to you that you have failed to answer, like why Yasser Arafat refused to establish in 1948 a “Palestine” pursuant to UN Resolution 181 of 1947, when Modern Israel was formed from Ancient Israel.

          • Drakken

            International so called law is a bloody farce, National sovereignty is what rules in the end, UN resolutions be bloody damned for they have no enforcement other than lip service.

          • defcon 4

            Really? How many people has Drakken killed in the 21st century n00b?

          • Drakken

            I plead the 5th where that question is concerned.

          • Drakken

            Eff the palis, they deserve complete utter destruction for waging jihad on Israel and wanting the destruction of Israel. It must be the fact that you have lived under muslim domination for so long that you openly side with the very savages that oppress you. Sorry to say, I am out of sympathy and empathy for a bunch of dhimmis that live on their knees.

          • frjohnmorris

            I have never advocated the destruction of Israel. I have, however, supported the official American opposition to the illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories and the two state solution to the Arab Israeli conflict that has been supported by presidents from both parties. As an American my first loyalty is to America, not to Israel. The problem is that too many Americans put loyalty to Israel above their loyalty to America and American interests in the Middle East. I object to the fact that AIPAC, which is pledged to support Israel which is a foreign country is the largest and most influential lobbying group in Washington.

          • Drakken

            The Israelis won the wars your Islamic friends started, to the victors go the spoils. So you go ahead and be a dhimmi sympathizer for Islamic jihad, the rest of us will fight it.

          • frjohnmorris

            Cease accusing me of supporting the Muslims. I do not. I support the Arab Christians. Cannot you understand that the first victims of Islamic jihad in the Middle East are Orthodox Christians. I agree that we should fight Islamic jihad, but in Syria our government is supporting the side allied with Al Qada and the Islamic jihadists. In Egypt, Obama said that the members of the Muslim Brotherhood were moderates. They won the election and immediately began the Islamization of Egypt. As a result over 50 Christian Church have been destroyed in Egypt. If you really oppose Islamic jihad you should support the Arab Christians who are the first victims of Islamic Jihad.

          • Drakken

            Well get your azz off the pulpit and go over there and help them, bring plenty of arms because your going to need them, otherwise a prayer and wishing the problem away isn’t going to cut it.

        • Drakken

          The Zionist you bloody Quisling are the only ones allowing you to exist and flourish, the muslims are slaughtering you useful idiots by the thousands, talk about Stockholm Syndrome in spades. So you go ahead and pray about it, the rest of us recognize islam for what it is, a direct threat. So your going to have to pardon me for praising Jesus and passing the ammunition instead of living on your knees in the face of muslim aggression.

          • frjohnmorris

            The Zionist have a long record of oppressing the native Christians in the Holy Land
            I do recognize the threat of radical Muslims, more than you because of my ties to Arab Christians. I strongly object to Obama’s policy of sending arms and aid to the rebels in Syria who are guilty or atrocities against Syrian Christians. If the US backed rebels win, there is a strong possibility that Christianity in Syria will suffer the same fate as Christianity has in Iraq. We got rid of one Saddam, but stood by while radical Muslims began a savage persecution of the Christians in Iraq. There are few Christians left in Iraq as a direct result of the American invasion that did not protect the Christians from Islamic radicals.

          • Drakken

            Complete utter BULLS*** and Islamic propaganda, let me tell you something Quisling, side with Islamic jihad, perish with them with our regards. No more sympathy or empathy for you traitors, mess with the bull, you get the horns.

          • frjohnmorris

            You must be insane. You completely ignore my constant objections to supporting the radical Muslims in Syria.

          • Drakken

            I am only pointing out your utter hypocrisy, you don’t like the Islamic jihad in Syria, but you support it in Gaza and the west bank as long as it is against the jews. Here let me help you out with your little problem, Israel is of western civilization the pali arabs are not and never will be since islam is supreme and the small Christian community makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.

          • frjohnmorris

            The small Christian community in the Holy Land makes a difference to me and the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians. We do not want to see the most important religious shrines of our religion become museums with no living Christian community there. Your hateful attitude shows the true nature of the problem. Extremists like you do not want peace, you want extinction of the Palestinian people. It is people like you on both sides who have kept the Middle East in turmoil for so long. The rest of the world will not stand by and allow people like you to exterminate the Palestinian people.

          • Drakken

            You cannot ever make peace with a bunch of savages that don’t want it, period! Those religious shrines that you bleat on about are being desecrated by the muslims who hate us Christians will a burning passion, the only time they want peace with us is if we are in dhimmi status and grovel before them. Extremist no, realist yes. There are no pali people padre, never have been and never will be, effem.

          • defcon 4

            “radical” muslimes says it all.

  • Necrophagi

    Yeah, that old line, “the Crusades caused the Jihads” is crap. They were the aggressors.

  • Brian O’Reilly
    • defcon 4

      “Radical” islam, the delineation w/o a difference. Thanks for playing, but no sale.

  • frjohnmorris

    I think that people are obsessed with the problems cause by Zionism because they are at the root of the whole problem with Islam. If we could resolve the Arab Israeli conflict we could take a lot of the wind out of the sails of the Al-Qaeda movement. I am realistic enough to recognize the reality of Israel, but the Zionist must get out of the Occupied Territories and allow the Palestinian people the same rights that they demand for themselves. The best solution would be a bi-national state with equality between Arabs and Jews. That not being possible because the Zionists demand a specifically Jewish state, then let Israel go back to its pre 1967 borders and leave the Palestinians alone to organize their own state with the understanding that they must recognize the reality of Israel and stop all acts of terrorism. In simple terms there must be a solution based on a realistic compromise that is fair to both sides.

    • Paul Austin Murphy

      Have you ever read any history books on the middle-east and north Africa on the period prior to Israel’s creation? The jihad has been going on for 1,400 years – on and off. On and off depending on when and where. But take the Muslim Brotherhood, which began taking action against Jews in the 1920s – twenty years before Israel.

      The Wahhabi movement predates Israel by 200 years. But why no go back to Muhammad, who killed up to 500 Jews in one sitting and promised to rid Arabia of all Jews and Christians.

      If you really want to believe that Israel is to blame for everything, as the Nazis did about the Jews, it’s up to you. But I suggest you read a few books that you know aren’t guaranteed to back-up what you already believe.

      In addition, their were programs of Jews in the middle-east in the 19th century, even before modern Zionism. They carried on throughout the 20th century before the creation of Israel. Most of the Arab Jews persecuted knew NOTHING about Zionism.

      Your analysis may have some merit, but to totally ignore the history before Israel, as well as the Koranic basis for contemporary Jew-hatred, is either willful ignorance or stupidity.

      • frjohnmorris

        I am concerned about the plight of the Palestinians because I have ministered to many Palestinian Christians and have heard their stories. Perhaps is you would speak with a Palestinian Christian about what their life is like under Zionist domination you would see my point, especially if you speak with a Palestinian from the Occupied Territories. The American people have not been told the truth about the fate of the Palestinians under Zionist domination. The Zionists were able to create their Jewish state on Palestinian land because the victors of the First World War refused to recognize the rights of the Arabs in the former Ottoman Empire to national self-determination. Instead, they divided the Middle East up between France and England, with Palestine under the British Mandate, the Zionists organized themselves as a state within a state and began systematic persecution of the native Palestinians. In 1948 radical Zionists in the Irgun led by the future Prime Minister of Israel Menachan Begin massacred the people of the village of Deir Yassin. This caused many Palestinians to flee for their lives because the Irgun went around with loud speakers telling them to leave or they
        will share the fate of the people of Deir Yassin, That created the Palestinian refugee problem. Then the government of Israel declared the homes and lands of the refugees from the Irgun terrorism vacant and gave
        them to Jewish settlers. In 1967 when Israel occupied East Jerusalem, they gave the people living near the Wailing Wall a few hours to vacate their homes and then destroyed them to build a square for the Jews to pray before the Wailing Wall. Today, if the Jewish authorities suspect that the member of a family is a supporter of the terrorists they destroy the home of the whole family without a trial of any right of appeal. A Palestinian traveling a few miles to see a doctor or visit a Christian holy site must spend hours going through Israeli check points The Zionists never miss an opportunity to humiliate the Palestinians and remind them that they live under the power of Israel. Had the US allowed Jews to immigrate to the US during the Nazi era
        instead of turning them away under pressure from Zionists so that they
        would go to Palestine, we might not have had 65 years of war in the Holy
        Land.

        If the US had not supported the British by helping remove the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 to protect British oil interests we would not have the problems we now have with Iran today.

    • defcon 4

      What a load of steaming carp.

  • Frogwatch

    We need a modern day crusade to protect christians and other infidels from the islamic terror. It should be multinational and not associated with any govt. and would attack islamists as they attack others. Islamists do not believe in western values so cannot be part of the system they reject by being muslims. Being muslim must be a rejection of western values as they think the Koran is the direct word of god and not acting in accordance with it is a rejection of god. There can be no compromise on this. Unless they agree that the Koran is NOT the direct word of god, they should not be allowed in the west.

    • defcon 4

      For a muslime to say that the Koran is NOT the direct word of god would kinda imply they aren’t muslime anymore.

  • defcon 4

    What a load of steaming carp. The bulldozer driver was found innocent of deliberately running over St. Pancake.

    • muchiboy

      As if any further proof of the inhumanity of FPM followers were needed.You have to wonder if the bulldozer driver and members of the IDF and judiciary have similar sentiments.Shameful.

      • defcon 4

        The wrongful death lawsuit filed by ST. Pancake’s parents also failed. So sad, but too bad Ahmed!

        • Drakken

          Nothing quite like crying over a flat pancake right? ;) Good riddance to bad rubbish, the world is a better place without that traitor.

  • Joel Cairo

    Perhaps one might say that the Crusades were not the cause of jihad, but were caused by it. The reaction was by Christians who saw reason to invade the Holy Land to retake it from desecrating heathens. And, as Chezwick points out, the Arabs are still reacting, centuries after the fact; at a time when the rest of the world has moved on. Clearly, there is something else at work here.

  • paendragon

    The muslim PR game called “The Crusades:”

    The Muslim Game:

    Muslims love talking about the Crusades, and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”

    The Truth:

    Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

    The crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event n European history.

    The Crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression – an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

    The West may now dominate the Islamic world, but that has only been the case since the late 18th century, when a young general, Napoleon Bonaparte, conquered Egypt and temporarily imposed French rule. This initial European penetration into one of the heartlands of Islam was “a terrible shock” to Muslims, says historian Bernard Lewis. Until then, they had thought of themselves as the victors in the Crusades.

    That assumption is understanda ble. Muslim rulers held the preponderance of power as far as Europe was concerned until the 17th century and had done so, more or less, since the Prophet Muhammad issued Islam’s initial declaration of war against other religious faiths in the seventh century. The Prophet wrote the Christian Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor of Persia to suggest they surrender to his rule because, well, their day was done.

    “I have now brought God’s final message,” the Prophet declared. “Your time has passed. Your beliefs are superseded. Accept my mission and my faith or resign or submit … you are finished.”

    This claim propelled the armies of Islam to take on the rest of the world.

    Muslim armies charged out of the Arabian Peninsula to conquer Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt – all of which, as part of the late Roman Empire, were officially Christian. By the eighth century, Christian North Africa was under Muslim control.

    Islam soon swept into Europe, grabbing Spain, Portugal and southern Italy. In the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks conquered much of Asia Minor, or Turkey.

    Here are some quick facts about the Crusades:

    The first Crusade began in 1095, 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversion s of Christians. By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

    Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death.

    As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

    In theory, the Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Mecca pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

    The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian.

    They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.

    The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,372nd year.

    The period of Crusader “aggression” compresses to about 20 years of actual military campaign, much of which was spent on organization and travel.

    (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250).

    By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

    Christian Europe certainly fought back. In the eighth century, campaigns to recover the Iberian Peninsula began, but it wasn’t until the end of the 15th century that the Reconquista swept Islam out of Spain and Portugal. Other counterattacks were made, the most famous of which were the war- pilgrimages known as the Crusades.

    In 1095, Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade. He urged Europeans to aid fellow Christians who were being slaughtered by Muslims. “They (the Muslim Turks) have invaded the lands of those Christians and have depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; they have lead away a part of the captives into their own country, and a part they have destroyed by cruel tortures.” The Crusader army marched deep into enemy territory to reclaim the ancient Christian cities of Nicaea and Antioch, and on July 15, 1099, Jerusalem.

    Admittedly it wasn’t a pleasant reclamation. As was standard practice when a city resisted, much of population was slaughtered. That, however, doesn’t mean the threat to which the Crusades were a response wasn’t real.

    The Crusades were a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two – thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam.

    Unfortunately, subsequent Crusades over the next three centuries weren’t as successful. By the end of the 13th century, the Christian Crusaders had been chased from the Middle East. From then on the concern was no longer about reclaiming Christian homelands, but about saving Europe.

    In 1453, Muslims captured the capital of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople (or Istanbul, as it is now known). In the late 15th century, Rome was evacuated when Muslim armies landed at Otranto in an unsuccessful invasion of Italy. By the 16th century, the Ottoman Turk Empire stretched from North Africa and Arabia to the Near East and Asia Minor. They penetrated deep into Europe, conquering Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania, Croatia and Serbia. In 1529, the Ottomans laid siege to Vienna. Luckily for Europe, the siege failed; otherwise the door to Germany would have been open. It wasn’t until 1572, when the Catholic Holy League defeated the Ottoman fleet at Le panto, that Islam’s threat to the West finally ended, at least until the late 20th century when the doors to Europe were once again opened to Muslims.

    Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over. Islam unquestionably won the Crusades, even though Europe was ultimately able to reassert itself and dominate the world. The reasons for this success are much debated, but it’s
    reasonable to conclude that the West won the war of ideas.

    Notions of individualism and freedom, capitalism and technology, and, most of all, the West’s turn from theology to science, carried the day. Religion became in the West an essentially private concern. It is on this “modern” turn that the anti-Crusade attitude developed.

    During the Protestant Reformation, when the authority of the Catholic church was under attack, the Crusades began to be regarded as a ploy by power-hungry Popes and land-hungry aristocrats. This judgment was extended by the Enlightenment philosophers, who used the Crusades as a cudgel with which to beat the church.

    The Enlightenment view of the Crusades still holds sway. After the Second World War, with western intellectuals feeling guilty about imperialism and European politicians desperate to abandon colonial responsibilities, the Crusades became intellectually unfashionable.

    Historian Steven Runciman reflected this attitude in his three-volume study, A History of the Crusades, published in the early 1950s. He cast the Crusades as “morally repugnant acts of intolerance in the name of God.”

    Almost single-handedly Runciman managed to define the modern popular view of the Crusades.

    The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

    What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.

    • frjohnmorris

      The truth is that one of the goals of the Crusades was to force Eastern Christians to submit to papal domination. In 1054 Rome broke from the Eastern Church because the Eastern Patriarchs refused to submit to the authority of the pope. 41 years later Urban II used the excuse of the Islamic conquest of the Holy Land to organize armies to go to the Middle East and to try to force Eastern Christians to submit to papal authority.

      • paendragon

        Nonsense! The churches split during the Chalcedon Council in 451 AD, over 600 long years before that. Please pay attention!

        The Eastern Christians were being destroyed by islam, and so had to break down and ask for help. The Byzantine Emperor was at war with his own treasonous minions as well, and so sought to get the Crusaders to help him in stead of both mutually Crusading against the invading barbarian muslim hordes.

        • frjohnmorris

          It is true that the Oriental Orthodox split from the then united Church after Chalcedon. It is also true that the Byzantine Emperor asked for the Crusade. But they were expected to return liberated areas to the Empire. Instead, they set up Crusader principalities and eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem and persecuted the Eastern Orthodox Christians by trying to force them to submit to Rome. That is historical fact. The Crusaders finalized the East West Schism by the way that they treated the Eastern Orthodox in the areas they captures.

          • paendragon

            Again: it was the selfish actions of the Eastern Emperor which forced the Crusaders to take control them selves.

          • frjohnmorris

            Nonsense. The Crusades were an act of Western European imperialism and a papal effort to force the Eastern Orthodox to submit to his authority.

          • paendragon

            EXTRA-nonsense on your part: Crusades opposed islam.

          • frjohnmorris

            I strong suggest that you read something on the history of the Crusades and the harm that they did to the Eastern Christians. If you can find it try Runciman’s work.

          • paendragon

            You think I could author the above piece and not have read at least something on the Crusades, you wilfully self- blinded liberal?! Runciman was a traitor to rationality and civilization.

          • frjohnmorris

            I am anything but a liberal. Runciman is an internationally recognized historian.

          • paendragon

            You seem both anti-West and pro-islam, and to believe more about WHO said something, than WHAT was actually said. Runciman was a traitor to rationality & civilization, liberal!

    • hiernonymous

      So the Crusades were defensive because they were reclaiming Christian lands – in Jerusalem’s case, 457 years after it was taken by the Muslims?

      For a bit of perspective, 457 years ago, the first English colonists would not be landing at Jamestown for another 51 years.

      Imagine Mongolia and China launching an attack on Russia in order to seize Siberia – and characterizing it as a ‘defensive’ war because, after all, Russia took the Siberian Khanate in 1580. The Mexicans would have to allow the U.S. to incorporate Texas for another 3 centuries before launching their ‘defensive’ war to recover their lost territory.

      You also forgot to mention that the Fourth Crusade targeted that Muslim stronghold of Constantinople, crippling the Byzantine Empire, dividing it into three parts for many years, and paving the way for that disaster you mention in 1453.

      • paendragon

        And you seem to assume that the Internet and/or other forms of instantaneous communication existed way back then, with popular opinion forcing leaders to act instantly the very second they heard Jerusalem had fallen. You also seem to believe in the criminal statute of limitations notion, where if the victim either doesn’t notice the theft, or is too cowed to complain about it within a subjectively determined amount of time, then the crime is deemd to have never really happened anyway. Such vile notions only benefit criminals.

        Besides which, the Fourth Crusade didn’t set out to “target” Constantinople: the Eastern Empire, being beseiged by the barbarian muslim hordes, had to resort to inviting in Western Crusaders to bolster their ranks. But then the Eastern Emperor wanted to use them to fight his own treasonous rivals, in a merely selfish, internecine squabble, while the muslims roamed free,
        which forced the Crusaders to take full control them selves.

        • hiernonymous

          “…with popular opinion forcing leaders to act instantly the very second they heard Jerusalem had fallen…”

          457 years is a very curious interpretation of “instantly.” I’m pretty sure that word of the fall of Jerusalem could wend its way to the various courts of Europe within the space of a single generation without requiring “the Internet and/or other forms of instantaneous communication.”

          “You also seem to believe in the criminal statute of limitations notion, where if the victim either doesn’t notice the theft, or is too cowed to complain about it within a subjectively determined amount of time, then the crime is deemd to have never really happened anyway.”

          It seems you’ve managed to misunderstand both my post, and the purpose of statutes of limitations.

          That said, it’s not clear what sort of ethical framework you’re trying to build here. If you’re suggesting that the passage of no amount of time could legitimize the conquest of a piece of land from another people, then there’s no point in discussing the land known as Israel as being rightfully Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

          One presumes you are as enthusiastically calling for the return of Texas to Mexico, of Washington and Oregon to the Nez Perce, and that you propose ridding Spain of Muslim, Jew, and Christian alike?

          “…which forced the Crusaders to take full control them selves.”

          “Don’t make me hit you again, woman!”

          • paendragon

            Israel was always part of Canaan, so when the Jews returned there from having been kidnapped by the Egyptians, they were simply returning home. Israel has always been the Jews’ lands, and they only genocided their neighbours when said other tribes attempted to prevent them from returning home.

            As for Christians, they too have a right to be there, since Christianity is only the largest sect of reformed Judaism.

            Muslims, on the other hand, have no right to exist anywhere, since islam is nothing but an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME syndicate, which blames “god” for its members own criminal propensities.

            And even so, their only ‘official’ claim to Jerusalem, is that their bandit-king founder, Big Moe, said he had a dream where a flying donkey took him there one night.

            Christian Spain got along fine with the Jews, but muslims, being criminal extortionist gangsters, will never get along wiht anyone not (or even) them selves.

            PS: Please explain the “purpose” of limitations statutes.

            Otherwise, “To the moon, Alice!”
            ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            “Israel was always part of Canaan, so when the Jews returned there from having been kidnapped by the Egyptians, they were simply returning home. Israel has always been the Jews’ lands, and they only genocided their neighbours when said other tribes attempted to prevent them from returning home.”

            That’s wholly at odds with the religious traditions of the Jews and Christians. Modern Israel represented, not a return home, but the “Promised Land” with which God rewarded Israel for its faithfulness. Its occupants were not killed or enslaved as a result of any attempts to prevent the Israelites from ‘returning’ anywhere; as a rule, they fought to avoid extermination. Joshua was charged by God, not to get his tribes to their home with as little trouble as possible, and not to negotiate with the prior inhabitants, such that they would be spared if they did not oppose the Israelites. No, God charged Joshua with leading a conquest, and a conquest it was.

            Similarly, Judea was a province of Rome by virtue of Roman conquest; the Jews were dispersed from their traditional homes by the Romans after their second failed uprising against Roman rule. Christianity was dominant until the Muslim conquest, not because it was an offshoot of Judaism – as the Jews themselves had been dispersed – but as a result of Roman imperialism.

            “Christian Spain got along fine with the Jews…”

            You might want to better acquaint yourself with the history of the Reconquista and of the Spanish Inquisition.

            The purpose of statutes of limitations is to implement the idea that an individual should not live forever in fear of punishment of relatively minor crimes. The statutes do not apply to murder and other capital offenses. Statutes of limitations do not apply to fugitives or those evading pursuit.

          • paendragon

            “Joshua!”? Surely, you meant “Moses”?! The reason the land was Promised to them, was that it was theirs originally, and they hadn’t had the faith to remain there when times got tough, so they’d foolishly left for Egypt looking for work.

            Joshua only left Israel to go to Egypt because of starvation.

            Christianity was only dominant because of the PREVIOUS, PAGAN Roman imperialism, which predated Christianity.

            In contrast, the violent muslim invasion occurred because jealous Muhammad had a dream that he had a right to it.

            And as for the Spanish Jews, you might want to read up on the Jewish Spanish Inquisition, which predated and inspired the Christian one!

            ;-)

            You’ve just proven why statutes of limitations should be illegal: they grant criminals the right to be irresponsible!

          • hiernonymous

            No, I meant Joshua. It was Joshua that God charged with the conquest of the Promised Land.

            Roman imperialism did not end or diminish with its adoption of Christianity. The Roman policy of suppressing the re-establishment of Judaism in Jerusalem was expressly continued under the Christian emperors. The Christian presence, and dominance, in the region during the Byzantine Empire is a direct result of Roman conquest, not some sort of benign religious diffusion.

            “And as for the Spanish Jews, you might want to read up on the Jewish Spanish Inquisition, which predated and inspired the Christian one!”

            I’d be happy to. Where would one read about this event? Please provide a specific, credible reference.

            “You’ve just proven why statutes of limitations should be illegal: they grant criminals the right to be irresponsible!”

            No, they protect the rights of the accused. Imagine trying to defend yourself from a forty-year-old accusation of petty theft when exculpatory evidence has long been lost or destroyed, memories are uncertain, and witnesses dead or gone. Nor should individuals have to live in fear for their entire lives over misdemeanors. At any rate, your personal take on the issue is irrelevant; statutes of limitations are well incorporated into common law and civil law, whether you think they should be or no.

            As for your application of the concept to the international scene, that’s your conceit to defend or no. However, if you truly believe that there is no ‘statute of limitations’ on the occupation or conquest of territory, then pretty much the entire population of the Earth is, by your lights, rightfully subject to murder by some other segment of the population that can claim descent or relation, however tenuous, to a people previously displaced from that territory. The United States, of course, in its entirety would be the rightful object of raids by Native Americans and Mexicans, with the occasional bombing of New York by Dutch warplanes and the odd bombardment of Florida’s ports by the Spanish navy to spice things up. There’s no hard and fast rule as to when a conquest is no longer properly to be contested, but it’s pretty clear that claiming ‘self defense’ after over four centuries is pretty extreme.

          • paendragon

            Joshua is the one who led his family OUT of Isreal, and down into Egypt, in search of work and food.

            Moses led them back.

            As for what the pre-Christian Romans did to disperse the Jews (and later to keep them dispersed) that had nothing to do with any official Christian doctrines.

            Finally, as for the statutes of limitations “protect(ing) the rights of the accused. Imagine trying to defend yourself from a forty-year-old accusation of petty theft when
            exculpatory evidence has long been lost or destroyed, memories are uncertain, and witnesses dead or gone. Nor should individuals have to live in fear for their entire lives over misdemeanors.”

            Well, having these statutes actually carte-blanche prevent having the trials at all, and assessing the evidence, in the first place, is even more unfair no?

            Imagine not being able to right a past wrong, despite having all the evidence to lawfully convict the criminal, just because someone made up a purely subjective time limit in advance, having decided that criminals have the right to not live in fear of being punished for their crimes!

            That kinda defeats the whole contractual aspect of the Law (both its civil and criminal versions, which both only ever really amount to: “You have to pay for what you take”)!

            As for “extreme” conquest contentions: islam is itself nothing more than an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

            “God told us to commit these crimes!”

            (Capisce?)!

            So any claims to anything islam’s “muslims” (criminals) have ever taken, should be null and void in perpetuity, forever.

            And, exactly like nazis, mafiosis, and hell’s angels, NO criminal “muslim” has any valid legal right to exist anywhere, at any time, ever, either!

            Finally: No, the United States would not be subject to any claims by Mexicans, who are descendants of the invasive Spaniards who were there first.

            In fact, all of Mexico should be cleansed of all the Spanish Arabs who invaded it, by whatever remaining Tolmecs, Incas, and Aztecs can be found still extant.

            But this is impracticable.

            Similarly, I do strongly believe in native self-government here in North America, but again: NOT our fault – it was the fault of those Spanish Arabs, who decimated the native populations by plague, so no, we don’t have to go.

            Spain herself has already removed the spiritual if not genetic remnants of their near-millenia (780 years) of violent invasion, rape and conquest by the islamic Arabs.

            Back in the Middle East, the Jews are entitled to ALL of Jordan, and the Arabs only to Arabia.

            The Christian Greeks are indeed entitled to reclaim all their previous countries there, too – like Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Turkey.

            The Indians are entitled to reclaim Pakistan and Bengal (Bangladesh).

            Any questions?

            ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            “Joshua is the one who led his family OUT of Isreal, and down into Egypt, in search of work and food.

            Moses led them back.”

            You probably shouldn’t be offering public commentary on these subjects if your grounding in the subject is so abysmal. You appear to be thinking of Joseph. Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, but by Jewish tradition, God did not permit him to enter the Promised Land. It was Joshua who was charged with leading the conquest.

            “As for what the pre-Christian Romans did to disperse the Jews (and later to keep them dispersed) that had nothing to do with any official Christian doctrines.”

            First, it was not simply the “pre-Christian” Romans, but the Christian Romans, who occupied Judea, changed its name to Syria Palaestina, forbade the Jews from entering Jerusalem (which they also renamed). Christian control of the Promised Land was due entirely to Rome’s conquest and subsequent occupation of the land. It’s not at all clear what argument you are attempting to support by reference to Christian “doctrine.”

            “Well, having these statutes actually carte-blanche prevent having the trials at all, and assessing the evidence, in the first place, is even more unfair no?”

            No, as statutes of limitations are neither established nor applied in a manner to offer carte blanche. As you seem to keep forgetting, there are no statutes of limitations for murder. Further, if there are circumstances that prevent a potential plaintiff from exercising his right to pursue justice, the statute of limitations may be tolled – in essence, the clock stops ticking – while that condition exists. Again, you may not understand the reasons for such limitations, but they’ve been part of law since at least Roman times.

            “God told us to commit these crimes!”

            As I recall, that is precisely how Joshua and the Israelites justified the conquest of the Promised Land. It appears that you don’t object to the idea of deity-commanded mass murder; you simply wish to select which deity should be giving the commands.

            “Finally: No, the United States would not be subject to any claims by Mexicans, who are descendants of the invasive Spaniards who were there first.”

            How’s that relevant? The U.S. conquered land from the Mexicans; the Mexicans clearly have the right to defend themselves – even 457 years later. Now, if you’re pointing out that the Aztecs might come and resist the Mexicans while the Mexicans are resisting the Americans, well, sure. Since you don’t believe in a statute of limitations, we’ll have all sorts of simultaneous justified vendettas going on.

            “…it was the fault of those Spanish Arabs, who decimated the native populations by plague, so no, we don’t have to go.”

            Really? The “Spanish Arabs” drove the Nez Perce out of their homes? It was “Spanish Arabs” who defeated the Seminoles, the Apaches, the Lakota, the Cherokee; it was Spaniards at Wounded Knee and Sand Creek and Bear River? That’s a pretty shallow and twisted rationalization.

            “The Christian Greeks are indeed entitled to reclaim all their previous countries there, too – like Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Turkey.”

            Really? So Egypt, the Gift of the Nile, a civilization that existed while the ancestors of the Athenians were squabbling amongst themselves, rightfully belongs to the “Christian Greeks” because – wait for it – the Romans conquered Ptolemaic Egypt, and the Byzantines – who were, after all, still the Roman Empire – continued to occupy it for as long as they had the military wherewithal to do so. Your ethical model is suspect from the beginning, and it seems to be supported by a very hazy sense of history.

            “Any questions?”

            Just one – what in the world made you think you had learned enough to offer an opinion on this topic? If you can’t tell Joseph from Joshua, and if you think the Spanish are responsible for the Trail of Tears, you are operating in terrain known as “invincible ignorance.”

          • paendragon

            Give up now before you hurt yourself. Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery, whereupon he rose to power in Pharaoh’s service. His own descendants were later enslaved there by the next, more jealous, Pharaoh. The Joshua you refer to was indeed Moses’ servant, but he didn’t lead them to the promised land; at most, he scouted out the area later, to help remove their former neighbours who were squatting on and occupying their property. It was at most a RE-conquest.

            And NO, the “Christian” Romans did not occupy Judea Palastina, they were still all confirmed Pagans until the emperor Constantine later converted on his death-bed.

            And NO, the Jewish “genocides” were all limited both temporally, to: “Once,” and geographically, in scope to: “Here, in the land of Israel and environs,” as historic descriptions, but not as eternal prescriptions: while, in contrast, the muslims’ depredations are based only on Muhammad’s hearing of those possibly BAD, one-of, and entirely localized, limited events, and then his declaring them to be GOOD deeds, and extrapolating them to apply to Always, and Everywhere; i.e: as the eternal and infinite commands of his sick and twisted version of a ‘god.’

            So islam is therefore literally, infinitely, worse.

            Finally, YES the Spanish (genetically and culturally Arabs, by the time of Columbus and Cortez) were the ones who had so-decimated the natives with the plague, that the trail of tears etc was even possible. Since all the Mexicans today are of Spanish Arab descent, they have no real right to either Mexico nor to anywhere in North America.

            As for statutes of limitations, your false argument is only traditionalist: “That’s how it’s always been done!” But objectively wrong is wrong, and it’s always been wrong.

          • hiernonymous

            “The Joshua you refer to was indeed Moses’ servant, but he didn’t lead
            them to the promised land; at most, he scouted out the area later, to
            help remove their former neighbours who were squatting on and occupying
            their property.”

            That’s an improvement over your “led his family OUT of Isreal [sic],” but still not the Biblical account.

            “And NO, the “Christian” Romans did not occupy Judea Palastina, they were
            still all confirmed Pagans until the emperor Constantine later
            converted on his death-bed.”

            You seem to be having a little trouble with the concept. Yes, the Romans were pagans until they became Christians. The bit you’re struggling with is that after the Empire became Christian, it did not stop occupying Judea (or Syria Palaestina). “Occupation” is an ongoing phenomenon, as is implicit in your discussion of conquest and reconquest. If Rome’s title to Judea, so to speak, was illegitimate when it was a pagan state, its title to Judea was not suddenly validated by its conversion to a different religion. In neither case was it the original occupant of the land, and that seems to be the sole criterion you are applying – albeit with questionable history – to your various examples.

            “And NO, the Jewish “genocides” were all limited in scope: both
            temporally, to: “Once;” and geographically, to: “Here, in the land of
            Israel and environs,” as historic descriptions, but not as eternal
            prescriptions. ”

            So a deity-directed genocide is acceptable as long as it’s only conducted once? How often do you suppose “genocide” is a repeat phenomenon? You’re rationalizing again.

            “Finally, YES the Spanish (genetically and culturally Arabs, by the time
            of Columbus and Cortez) were the ones who had so-decimated the natives
            with the plague…”

            Well, no, it wasn’t the plague, but the Native Americans in contact with them certainly suffered massive losses to epidemic.

            Just to make sure we understand – Wounded Knee was the Arabs’ fault, because U.S. forces would never have been able to kill so many defenseless people if the Spanish hadn’t reduced their population through disease, and the Spanish were really Arabs.

            I really had better stop before I hurt myself – I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

            “Since all the Mexicans today are of Spanish Arab descent, they have no
            real right to either Mexico nor to anywhere in North America.”

            Is that because Spanish Arabs don’t have a real right to be anyplace, or because they aren’t Native Americans?

            And whichever it is, they were in Texas before the U.S. was, and isn’t that your measure of how to decide who, among any two peoples, has the right to a given territory? By your standards, the pecking order is clearly Native American, Mexican, U.S. – if the Mexicans don’t have right to the land, the U.S. obviously doesn’t, either. And shouldn’t the Anglo and French Canadians be packing up, as well? Or do you have another rationalization?

            “But objectively wrong is wrong, and it’s always been wrong.”

            No, it’s not “only traditionalist.” It’s recognition that in pretty much every legal system for millenia, it’s been recognized that there are more factors in play than you are willing to recognize. An unduly draconian system generates injustices of its own, out of proportion to the harms it is established to address. That you don’t like it is irrelevant; you certainly haven’t shown statutes of limitations to be ‘wrong.’

            And I’m still waiting on that information concerning the “Jewish Spanish Inquisition” you offered.

          • paendragon

            Rome is not “an ongoing phenomenon” occupying Israel.

            The general topic was conquest, not specifically limited to genocide; nevertheless, the Jews’ genocides were specific and limited in time and place; the muslims’ calls for global genocide are literally infinitely worse than the old Jews’ one.

            And, YES, it was the plague the Spanish brought which so weakened and decimated the native Americans that they were able to be routed by the later invaders. Do some basic research; a good primer on this subject would be Ronald Wright’s book, What Is America?

            And, you sure love circular “reasoning,” aka tautologies, don’t you?

            ” It’s recognition that in pretty much every legal system for millenia, it’s been recognized that there are more factors in play than you are willing to recognize…”

            …really only adds up to: “Traditionalist.” Doesn’t it?

            ;-)

            And the Jews had their own Inquisition in Spain, which pre-dated and inspired the later secular, allegedly “Catholic” ones, in which the jealous Rabbis amputated their own women’s noses for being “too promiscuous.” And worse.

            That you can’t find it on Google or Wikipedia shows how truly lazy you are, as far as conducting serious research goes.

          • hiernonymous

            “The general topic was conquest, not specifically limited to genocide”

            Which is why your persistent reference to Muslim genocide being “infinitely worse” than the “Jews’ genocides” is particularly puzzling.

            Rome conquered Judea from its original inhabitants; the “Christian Romans” inherited that occupation from their pagan predecessors; they continued the occupation. Given your opposition to “statutes of limitations,” there’s no chain of reasoning that results in Rome gaining ‘title’ to the land by virtue of its conversion to Christianity.

            “And, YES, it was the plague the Spanish brought which so weakened and decimated the native Americans that they were able to be routed by the later invaders.”

            Two points:

            1) No, it was not the plague; it was smallpox, followed by typhus, cholera, and the measles, which killed so many Native Americans.
            2) Your reasoning, even at face value, is flawed. Starting from the position that diseases brought by the Spanish weakened the North American natives, it does not in any way follow that the Spanish then became responsible for crimes committed by others against those natives. The villagers at Wounded Knee were shot by U.S. soldiers, not Spanish; the conquest of those lands was conducted by Americans, not Spanish.

            “Do some basic research”

            You mean like understanding that the plague is a particular disease, and understanding that smallpox is not the plague? Or were you referring to truly basic research, such as learning to distinguish Joshua from Moses from Joseph? You’ve a bit of credibility to earn back before offering research suggestions.

            “..really only adds up to: “Traditionalist.” Doesn’t it?

            ;-)”

            Why, no. If the only reason I had offered had been “it’s always been done that way,” you might have had a point – but I’ve offered some of the reasons that statutes of limitations are so widely accepted that they are traditional, which is not the same thing at all. You don’t like those reasons, but that’s neither here nor there.
            Unless the emoticon was added to indicate that you understood this already, and your inanity was meant in jest. If so, sorry for missing your humor.

            “That you can’t find it on Google or Wikipedia shows how truly lazy you are, as far as conducting serious research goes.”

            Again, two comments:
            1) If you think Google or Wikipedia are the tools of “conducting serious research,” you don’t understand how to conduct serious research, and
            2) the burden of proof lies with the individual making a claim or assertion. So far, you haven’t even identified a specific historical event, much less support it. If you know what you’re talking about, support it. If you don’t, just say so, rather than blustering about Google and Wikipedia.

          • paendragon

            1.Islam officially demands genocidal conquest. This is bad. Nobody else has ever demanded this before islam.

            2. The Romans don’t have anything to do with Israel.

            3. ‘The plague’ is not a specific malady; it’s a generic term.

            4. It doesn’t matter how many have (traditionally) “always accepted” some objectively WRONG laws, they’re still WRONG. And they’re still only “accepted” by TRADITION.

            You just keep trading synonyms: “accepted, recognized.” Simply swapping synonyms for the word “tradition” does not amount to having put forth “different reasons” to justify your argument.

            FAIL.

            5. You’re a chimp, aren’t you? A simian at a keyboard LOL!

          • hiernonymous

            1. You’re changing the subject.
            2. You were arguing that the Crusades were defensive in nature, since the Christians were reclaiming land that the Muslims had held for centuries, but only by right of conquest, which you argue is not valid, however much time has passed. Any Christian title to that land also derived from conquest – in this case, by Rome. So, yes, Rome has a great deal to do with the matter.
            3. No, “plague” and “smallpox” are not synonymous. The term you may be looking for is ‘epidemic,’ or arguably ‘pandemic.’
            4. Hone your reading skills. Nobody has argued that statutes of limitations are proper simply because they are traditional. I’ve offered several reasons they became traditional; you’ve stated you don’t like those reasons. Your likes or dislikes are irrelevant; what you never did was show that they were wrong. “FAIL” is not an argument.
            5. I might as well be, for all your ability or willingness to read or respond to what is actually written.

            I still haven’t seen your response on this “Jewish Spanish Inquisition.”

          • paendragon

            You’ve proven the old adage about arguing with liberals: Arguing with liberals (or muslims, or any other kind of lying fraudulent criminal) is like playing chess with a pigeon: no matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it’s victorious.

          • hiernonymous

            Your pigeon story does not:
            1) Place Joshua in a nonexistent Israel to live out Joseph’s life, nor put Moses in command of a conquest he never lived to see;

            2) Identify, explain, or source your “Jewish Spanish Inquisition,”
            3) transform yersinia pestis into variola major or minor,

            4) put Spanish fingers on American triggers at Sand Creek or Wounded Knee, or
            5) serve any function apart from argument ad hominem.

            Of your various interesting propositions, I am most interested in these two:

            1) Could you elaborate on your version of Joshua? How did he come to leave Israel before it was established, travel to Egypt looking for work, then link up with Moses during the long sojourn in the wilderness? Perhaps I’ll learn something new about the Jewish traditions.

            2) Similarly, I confess ignorance of this “Jewish Spanish Inquisition.” Could you get around to providing enough information about it to identify it, and perhaps steer me to a credible source to read up on it?

          • hiernonymous

            Of your various interesting propositions, I am most interested in these two:

            1) Could you elaborate on your version of Joshua? How did he come to leave Israel before it was established, travel to Egypt looking for work, then link up with Moses during the long sojourn in the wilderness? Perhaps I’ll learn something new about the Jewish traditions.

            2) Similarly, I confess ignorance of this “Jewish Spanish
            Inquisition.” Could you get around to providing enough information about it to identify it, and perhaps steer me to a credible source to read up on it?

            *crickets*

          • paendragon

            Israel was part of Canaan, which is why Hebrew derives from the Canaanite language (and Aramaic and Arabic derive from Hebrew). Israel existed before Joseph left for Egypt, looking for work. Moses later simply led the Jewish people BACK to Israel, in the land of Canaan. Moses then genocided 7 tribes in the lands surrounding Israel, tribes which actively sought to block the Jews’ return to their lands. Joshua smoked another 2 tribes after Moses died.

            As for the Jewish Spanish Inquisition, which predated and inspired the secular, “Catholic” Spanish one of Ferdinand and Isabella, it’s well documented by historians, but it just hasn’t yet trickled down to reach you lazy peons who have limited themselves to Google and Wiki as research sources.

          • hiernonymous

            “Israel existed before Joseph left for Egypt, looking for work.”

            Wait a moment – a few posts back, you corrected my account of Joshua as being the leader of the Jewish conquest of the Promised Land by telling us that Joshua was the one who left Israel – or, as you put it, “Isreal” – for Egypt. So we can take this as an acknowledgment on your part that you mixed Joshua up with Joseph. Let me help you a bit further – Israel was not “part of Canaan” when Joseph left; Israel was Joseph’s father Jacob. So, no, “Israel” as a nation did not exist “before Joseph left for Egypt.”

            “As for the Jewish Spanish Inquisition, which predated and inspired the secular, “Catholic” Spanish one of Ferdinand and Isabella, it’s well documented by historians, but it just hasn’t yet trickled down to reach
            you lazy peons who have limited themselves to Google and Wiki as research sources.”

            So far, you haven’t provided enough information for whatever it is you’re talking about to say yea or nay to that. You appear to be taking refuge in vagueness.

          • paendragon

            The land of Israel, in Canaan, existed before Joseph left for Egypt.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, no. The land that eventually would become Israel certainly existed. Your usage is a bit like saying that Napoleon invaded the Soviet Union.

            Let’s face it – you didn’t remember who Joshua was, you were eager to make a correction, and you’ve spent unholy amounts of effort trying to spin your position into something other than the gaffe that it was. It’s unseemly, transparent, and the hole won’t stop getting deeper if you insist on continuing to shovel.

          • paendragon

            Face it, the Jews’ land existed, they lived there no matter what it’s name, so they had a right to return to it, all your petty quibblings aside.

          • hiernonymous

            But it wasn’t the Jews’ land before they left. Jacob and his family were just one family among many inhabitants. The many people who lived there contemporaneously with Jacob / Israel were not Jewish; they did not leave their homes; and they were killed, enslaved, or driven off, not because they had taken land from the descendants of Jacob, but because Jacob’s descendants believed that God had given them permission to engage in conquest.

            Now, if you’ve abandoned your “statutes of limitations” approach, and simply assert that the Jews had right to the land because God said so, then at least I’d understand where you’re coming from. But if you’re going to try to justify the conquest on grounds of prior ownership, well, the people they killed had been there at least as long – and had never abandoned the land, to boot. On what non-Yahweh related grounds do you argue that the Jews had the right to drive them out?

          • paendragon

            Those other tribes had deliberately blocked the Jew’s rightful return, thus earning their armed opposition.

          • hiernonymous

            So, for example, Jericho had earned its massacre by, well, what, exactly? Building their city deliberately in the only spot the Hebrews could pass through on their way home? Joshua 5 describes the fear that the inhabitants of Jericho had of the invading Israelite army. It doesn’t make any mention of them trying to block the Israelites from anyplace but, well, Jericho.

          • paendragon

            Simple! They were all irresponsible excuse-making pagan idolaters (liberals)!

          • hiernonymous

            “Simple! They were all irresponsible excuse-making pagan idolaters (liberals)!”

            Ah, so the whole statutes-of-limitations excursion was irrelevant – the right to the land is determined by one’s choice of religion and political beliefs?

          • paendragon

            Criminals have no rights to anything; their own choices determine this; when they renege on their responsibilities, they lose their rights; it’s basic economics in action!

          • hiernonymous

            Let’s get this straight: the inhabitants of Canaan became “criminals” and “reneged on their responsibilities” by existing? Or by not adopting the Israelites’ religion or politics?

            I don’t want to be uncharitable, so could you articulate, exactly, the nature of Jericho’s ‘crimes,’ or explain which ‘responsibilities’ they had reneged on?

          • paendragon

            They were idolaters, worshipping multiple gods equally, as alibi excuses for their crimes. The Jews imagined having only the one God (whose only desire was to have us Reason with him) would establish universal objectivity, but that was before Muhammad proved that notion wrong by simply asserting that “allah” was unknown and unknowable, (and so, was a very un-Reasonable fellow; really only Pain, to be feared and obeyed, not admired, loved, nor reasoned with at all) and so not detatched from his creation; in other words, because the islamic god version is only generally “Everything” it’s also specifically Nothing; existentialism IS nihilism. Still, whether or not there is a ‘god,’ it’s better for us non-gods to all agree to obey the Golden Rule of Law, with no idolatrous excuses!

          • hiernonymous

            What does any of that have to do with establishing ownership of land? Are you now suggesting that a given piece of terrain belongs to the most righteous group of people claiming an interest in it?

            And if that’s the case, why in the world did you begin your excursion into ‘statutes of limitation?’

          • paendragon

            Yes when a den of criminals is found to be infesting any where, it’s the duty of the civilized to root them out and civilize them since they won’t do it to or for them selves.

            Otherwise, they will remain a permanent threat to everyone.

            Besides, muslims (criminals) don’t believe in statutes of limitation either (except that they officially declare that, once conquered, any land which was once islamic, is so forevermore, and must always be re-conquered if and when possible).

            There is no disparity in the two categories; islam violently conquered over two thirds of Christianity, and so had to be opposed and pushed back. There is no statute of limitations on this, nor, as I asserted, on any thing, because all such illegitimate statutes can really ever only benefit the criminals.

            It was YOUR “excursion” into them which derailed things.

          • hiernonymous

            What crimes did Jericho commit? Apart from being in the way?
            And how did the French king gain proper title to Jerusalem? The Muslims conquered the Levant from the Byzantines, not the French. And the Byzantines, of course, were far from the original inhabitants; they were simply the surviving eastern half of that Roman Empire that had conquered the regions from previous occupants. Clearly, that act of conquest was a crime, by your standards, and could not establish title over the region.

            And who, exactly, qualifies as ‘the civilized’ in your construction?

          • paendragon

            Wrong as usual; the Byzantines were Greeks, and, as Greek Christians, they were indeed the original inhabitants of the Levant.

            And no, the Jewish Spanish Inquisitiion is well documented, not “mine” at all. I’ll give you the multiple references and links once you admit to being wrong, which, since you are obviously a liberal, I can safely assume to mean “never!”

            And that should suffice as a hint towards who and what I can consider to be “civilized:” people who objectively agree to obey the ancient Golden Rule of Law which simply defines all situational, circumstantial morality as “Do Not Attack First.” Bear in mind that threats are attacks.

            After all, when one chooses to attack first, one’s own choice defines one as the predatory, criminal aggressor, and they as one’s innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it.

            ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            The Byzantine Empire was nothing more than the Eastern half of the Roman Empire; the Byzantines continued to refer to themselves as Roman, not Byzantine, and to this day, one of the Arabic words for “Greek” is Rum, in recognition of that continuity. The Eastern Empire certainly became more Greek in language and culture – at least, at the levels of the elites – as the influence and memory of the Western Empire faded, but you cannot treat the Byzantines as a Greek polity that sprang up out of nothingness. It was a continuation of the Roman Empire, and the lands it occupied, it occupied by virtue of Roman conquest, not by being the ‘original inhabitants of the Levant.’

            One should also point out the obvious – that even the Greek influences remaining from Alexander’s day, such as the Ptolemies in Egypt – were there by virtue of conquest, not by virtue of being the “originial inhabitants of the Levant.”

            “I’ll give you the multiple references and links once you admit to being wrong…”

            You’ve made a claim; either you can support it, or you cannot. Presumably, if you had something of interest to say on the topic, you’d not be engaging in this bizarre bit of kabuki.

            “After all, when one chooses to attack first, one’s own choice defines one as the predatory, criminal aggressor…”

            Okay, let’s work with that. Applying that standard puts the people of Jericho in the right, and the Israelites as the predatory, criminal aggressor. The Biblical account is clear: the people of Jericho barred their gates against the invading army; and when the Israelites took the city, they put all to the sword but Rahab and her household.

            There’s no two ways about it, yet you seem to continue to try to apply a double standard. Perhaps you can find a third standard that allows you to reach the conclusion you intend to reach anyway?

            “;-)”

            Is this a passive-aggressive signature block, or another indication that your post was intended as a joke?

          • paendragon

            You obviously know nothing of Egyptian history, to regard the Alexandrian occupation of Egypt AS a conquest; rather, he was invited in, because for centuries the land of Egypt had only been a stepping stone for the Persians and others to attack Greece from. Once Egypt was secured under the Greek’s superior armies, Egypt itself was saved from further humiliation, and the Greek Pharahs (the last 13 Pharaohs were Greeks) left the Egyptians to their own devices, socially speaking, while defending the country.

            And the Eastern half of the Roman empire was always Greek. The Egyptians were also non-Arabic Caucasians.

          • hiernonymous

            Alexander was certainly welcomed by the Egyptians as vastly preferable to the Persians from whom he took Egypt (I’ve had the chance to visit Siwa); that does not make his incorporation of Egypt into his empire any less a conquest. Not sure why you felt the need to point out that the last pharaohs were Greek – did you miss the reference to the Ptolemies in my previous post?

            “And the Eastern half of the Roman empire was always Greek.”

            No, the Eastern half of the Roman empire had not always been “Greek.” It was not until the 7th century, under Heraclius, that Greek became the official language of the Byzantines, and over the next half-century, the Roman elements would fade. Until that point, there’s no doubt that there was significant Greek influence in the east, but the empire was undoubtedly Roman.

            “The Egyptians were also non-Arabic Caucasians.”

            This bizarre racial comment is offered apropos of what?

            “As for Jericho, there is no statute of limitations regarding criminals, so it was invaded to stop their idolatrous crimes.”

            Let’s get this straight – worshiping idols is a crime?

          • paendragon

            Arabs are classified by geneticists as Caucasians, so I wanted to point out that the Egyptians before, during and after Alexander were also Caucasians, but not Arabic ones. These days, there are hardly any of them left in Egypt, the populace there having been genocided BY the muslim Arabs.

            And yes, idolatry is a crime; it’s nothing more than backwards excuse-making, showing a preference for image over reality, form over substance, and subjective opinionated lies over objective facts. Lying (fraud) is the most basic form of theft, being the theft of the Truth, and all crimes are forms of theft. I know liberals hate to hear this, because they are all really only criminal idolaters.

            PS: the “Roman” empire had local auxiliaries comprised of local inhabitants; the Eastern half of the empire were Greeks. You may be entitled to your own opinins, idolater, but never to your own facts.

          • hiernonymous

            “Arabs are classified by geneticists as Caucasians, so I wanted to point
            out that the Egyptians before, during and after Alexander were also
            Caucasians, but not Arabic ones. These days, there are hardly any of
            them left in Egypt, the populace there having been genocided BY the
            muslim Arabs.”

            Ah, you’re embarking on another unrelated tangent. Not sure where you get the ‘genocided’ bit, but also not particularly interested.

            “And yes, idolatry is a crime; it’s nothing more than backwards excuse-making, showing a preference for image over reality, form over substance, and subjective opinionated lies over objective facts. Lying (fraud) is the most basic form of theft, being the theft of the Truth,
            and all crimes are forms of theft. I know liberals hate to hear this, because they are all really only criminal idolaters.”

            So your basic argument concerning rightful ownership of the promised land is that the general rule for ownership of a particular piece of land is that he who owns it first retains title. Although the people of Jericho satisfied that criterion, they lost title to the land because they chose to worship gods they believed manifested in carven images, thus committing a crime against Truth, which was corrected by the tribe that chose to worship a god they believed manifested as a burning bush and who had told them to kill the current inhabitants and take the land as their own. This latter tribe represents, in your view, “objective facts,” because the existence of this tribe’s god, unlike the idolatrous tribe, is empirically verifiable.

            In short, after all of your wailing about ‘statutes of limitations,’ it turns out that statutes of limitations have absolutely nothing to do with your sense of who has the right to occupy what land – it’s all about which god one worships. Makes sense.

            “PS: the “Roman” empire had local auxiliaries comprised of local inhabitants; the Eastern half of the empire were Greeks. You may be entitled to your own opinins, idolater, but never to your own facts.”

            My own facts? You mean, like Joshua’s anachronistic flight from non-existent Israel, Moses’s fantasy conquest of a land he never set foot in, etc? Before you go parroting platitudes, read the posts to which you’re responding. I explicitly noted that we were discussing the languages and cultures of the elites; of course the Romans incorporated all sorts of people into their Empire. Greek culture was widespread in the Eastern Empire, but not ubiquitous, and, again, it was not until the 7th century or so that one could say that the transition from a Latin elite to a Greek elite was complete in the Byzantine Empire. One must also remind you that the elites throughout the Roman Empire at its height spoke Greek as a language of erudition and culture, much as the courtly elites of England spoke French – without being, thereby, a French kingdom.

            And speaking of entitlement to one’s own facts, have you managed to find any support for your Jewish Spanish Inquisition – or even to nail down a specific historical event that you could attach that name to for the sake of discussion? We’ve already ascertained that you were simply mixed up on Joshua and Joseph – are you trying to brazen out a similar bit of confusion in re Spain?

          • paendragon

            You lose again, sport! The Britons and Bretons have always been the same people; most of the British nobility had purely French names, and their wars were always over who Mom gave the island to in her will, etc.

            No real difference between Giles or Guy Britain and Gilles ou Guy Breton!

            Of course, some of that changed when the (previously Saxon/Germanic French gave up their own language in order to adopt badly-spoken Latin just so Big Carl could be “Roman” Emperor, and when the) “French” Norwegians later invaded and contested over the island in 1066 etc, but they were originally the same people. Oh, and they were originally all Greeks, too!

          • hiernonymous

            “You lose again, sport! The Britons and Bretons have always been the same
            people; most of the British nobility had purely French names, and their
            wars were always over who Mom gave the island to in her will, etc.”

            Well, where to begin? The Briton-Breton linkage is one of common Celtic ancestry, predating and irrelevant to a discussion of French language in an English court. Second, it’s a common misconception that French as a prestige language in the later English courts was a function of the Norman invasion. The Normans and their followers spoke Anglo-Norman for a while after the invasion; long after that language ceased to be a court language in England, French was a prestige language – not based on common ancestry, but on France’s pre-eminent cultural position in Europe. The rise of French as a second language in 14th-century England was marked by the learning of continental French, not Anglo-Norman, and was taught by imported French tutors, not by native speakers from England.

            More obviously to the point, William and his successors did not create in England a French kingdom in any sense – which should be obvious from the nationalism involved in the Hundred Years’ War, fought by an intensely English army in pursuance of its continental ambitions – sport.

            Not to offer any disparaging comments on your attention span, but you seem to have dropped the threads on Jericho and the Jewish Spanish Inquisition. It would be interesting to see if you actually intended to indicate that the burning bush represented “objective fact” and a valid basis for legitimizing conquest.

          • paendragon

            “Anglo-Norman?” Normans were Norse-men, from Norway, and “Anglo” (English) itself is a mix of German (or Saxon, if you prefer) and French (or badly-spoken Latin, ditto).

            The Jericho thread originated with you quibbling over whether of not it was Moses, Joseph, or Joshua who had “conquered” Canaan when the Jews escaped Egypt and returned there; all irrelevant to the uber-category: land-rights granted by dint of original ownership/possession.

            As for the Jewish Spanish Inquisition – that also arose as an offhanded reply of mine to one of your misconceptions.
            Again: irrelevant to the overall discussion; a typical digression of yours, or, as you like to put it metaphocially, an “excursion.” These things happen when people like you – who are unable to think categorically – wander off into creating side issues all the time, so you must be used to it by now.

            You idolatrous liberals always like to pretend that mere symptoms or effects are their own causes, because you really hate to believe in cause and effect culpability.

          • hiernonymous

            “The Jericho thread originated with you quibbling over whether of not it
            was Moses, Joseph, or Joshua who had “conquered” Canaan when the Jews
            escaped Egypt and returned there; all irrelevant to the uber-category.”

            Well, no. One of the primary issues here is who has right to a particular piece of land. You’ve insisted that the Crusaders were defending rightfully “Christian” territory when they launched their armies into the Holy Land, and you insisted that 4 1/2 centuries of occupation by the Muslims was insufficient to legitimize their ownership of the land – hence your objection to the idea of a “statute of limitations.”

            So we need to apply your own criteria to Jericho. That has nothing to do with the three personalities involved – that was simply a knee-jerk correction on your part that was anything but correct, and we can let that lie now. No, the issue of Jericho arises because the inhabitants of the city were, by Biblical tradition, the original inhabitants of that land. The Israelites did not claim that land due to prior ownership – after all, they had never owned it – but because God told them that he was giving it to them as a prize. There is nothing to suggest that the people of Jericho were in any way offensive or criminal; they seem to have simply been minding their own business when an army of Israelites appeared out of the wilderness, invested their city, stormed it, and put them all to death.

            Now, by the standards you originally applied – that of original occupancy determining the right to the land – the Israelites certainly could not claim right to that land. They seized it by conquest, and – as you noted – there is no statute of limitations for such a crime.

            Faced with this inconsistency in your approach, you then seem to have modified it to make Jericho’s religion a “crime.” The rationale you offered was that “Idolatry” is a fraud, rather than objective truth. The corollary, of course, is that the burning bush and Yahweh’s donation of Jericho’s land to the new state of Israel is not merely a religious tradition but “objective truth.”

            Clearly, that’s not a digression, but central to the original issue.

            As for your comment on the “Jewish Spanish Inquisition,” you’re the one who brought it up – if you didn’t think it relevant, why did you bring it up? Having brought it up, determining the validity of the comment is certainly appropriate. Your subsequent evasions have been sufficiently bizarre to attract more attention, rather than less, to the matter.

            “You idolatrous liberals always like to pretend…”

            It’s amazing how many errors you manage to pack into so few words. I’ve said nothing that’s particularly “liberal;” I’ve certainly said nothing at all about my religious beliefs; you’re offering those terms in the process of arguing ad hominem. You do so offering a clearly inappropriate (or, to be charitable, hyperbolic) “always.” One supposes that if you must commit so many mistakes, you’re to be applauded for at least being efficient in the process.

          • hiernonymous

            If you’ve responded, I haven’t seen it. Pity – the Jewish Spanish Inquisition sounded like it was going to be a rollicking good tale.

          • paendragon

            The thread was becoming tiresome, so here it is:

            The Jewish Spanish Inquisition:

            When they have consolidated the power to do so, the rabbis of Judaism cut off the hands of those who ran afoul of their Halakhic law, including the hands of their own followers:

            “Politically, the position of Jews in the Christian Spanish kingdoms was the highest ever attained by Jews in any country (except some of the ta’ifas and under the Fatimids) before the 19th century. Many Jews served officially as Treasurers General to the kings of Castile, regional and general tax collectors, diplomats (representing their king in foreign courts, both Muslim and Christian, even outside Spain), courtiers and advisers to rulers and great noblemen. And in no other country except Poland did the Jewish community wield such great legal powers over the Jews or used them so widely and publicly, including the power to inflict capital punishment.

            And in no other country except Poland did the Jewish community wield such great legal powers over the Jews or used them so widely and publicly, including the power to inflict capital punishment. From the 11th century the persecution of Karaites (a heretical Jewish sect) by flogging them to death if unrepentant was common in Castile. Jewish women who cohabited with Gentiles had their noses cut off by rabbis who explained that ‘in this way she will lose her beauty and her non-Jewish lover will come to hate her’. Jews who had the effrontery to attack a rabbinical judge had their hands cut off. Adulterers were imprisoned, after being made to run the gauntlet through the Jewish quarter. In religious disputes, those thought to be heretics had their tongues cut out.”

            (Professor Israel Shahak – Hebrew University of Jerusalem *Jewish History, Jewish Religion,* p.62)

            Get your primer here:

            http://www.bandung2.co.uk/books/Files/Religion/Jewish%20History,%20Jewish%20Religion%20%28The%20Weight%20of%20Three%20Thousand%20Years%29%20-%20Israel%20Shahak.pdf
            ;-)

            Other references:

            Ashtor, Eliyahu. The Jews of Moslem Spain. 3 vols. Philadelphia: 1984.

            Assis, Yom Tov. The Jews of Santa Coloma de Queralt. Jerusalem: 1988.

            Baer, Yitzhak. A History of the Jews in Christian Spain. 2 vols. Philadelphia: 1961, 1966, 1992.

            Beinart, Haim. Trujillo: A Jewish Community in Extremadura on the Eve of the Expulsion from Spain. Jerusalem: 1980.

            Burns, Robert I. Jews in the Notarial Culture: Latinate Wills in Mediterranean Spain, 1250–1350. Berkeley: 1996.

            Dillard, Heath. Daughters of the Reconquest: Women in Castilian Town Society, 1100–1300. Cambridge: 1984.

            Grossman, Avraham. Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Europe in the Middle Ages (Hebrew). Jerusalem: 2001.

            Hinojosa Montalvo, José. The Jews of the Kingdom of Valencia. Jerusalem: 1993.

            Klein, Elka. Power and Patrimony: the Jewish Community of Barcelona, 1050–1250. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University: 1996.

            Lamdan, Ruth. A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria and Egypt in the Sixteenth Century. Leiden: 2000.

            Leroy, Beatriz. The Jews of Navarre in the Late Middle Ages. Jerusalem: 1985.

            Levine Melammed, Renée. Heretics or Daughters of Israel: The Crypto-Jewish Women of Castile. New York: 1999.

            Mirrer, Louise. Women, Jews and Muslims in the Texts of Reconquest Castile. Ann Arbor: 1996.

            Regne, Jean. History of the Jews in Aragon. Jerusalem: 1978.

            Roth, Cecil. Doña Gracia of the House of Nasi. Philadelphia: 1977.

            Winer, Rebecca. Women, Wealth and Community: Christian, Jewish and Muslim Women in Thirteenth-Century Aragon. Aldershot, England: 2003.
            Articles

            Assaf, Simha. “The Anusim of Spain and Portugal in the Responsa Literature” (Hebrew). Me’assef Zion 5 (1933): 19–60.

            Assis, Yom Tov. “The ‘Ordinance of Rabbenu Gershom’ and Polygamous Marriages in Spain” (Hebrew). Zion 46 (1981): 251–277.

            Assis, Yom Tov. “Sexual Behaviour in Mediaeval Hispano-Jewish Society.” Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, edited by Ada Rapoport Albert and Steven J. Zipperstein, 25–59. London: 1988.

            Beinart, Haim. “Judios y conversos en Casarrubios del Monte.” Homenaje a Juan Prado: Miscelánea de estudios biblicos y hebraicos, ed. L. Alvarez Verdes, 645–657. Madrid: 1975.

            Beinart, Haim. “Herrera: Its Conversos and Jews” (Hebrew). Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies B, 53–85. Jerusalem: 1981.

            Bellamy, James A. “Qasmuna the Poetess: Who was She?” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.2 (1983): 423–424.

            Cardoner Planas, A. “Seis mujeres hebreas practicando la medicina en el reino de Aragon.” Sefarad 9 (1949): 442–443.

            Fleisher, Ezra. “About Dunash ben Labrat and his Wife and Son.” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature (Hebrew) 5 (1984): 189–202.

            Grossman, Avraham. “From the Heritage of Spanish Jewry: Treatment of the ‘Killer’ Wife in the Middle Ages” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 67:4 (1998): 531–561.

            Klein, Elka. “Protecting the Widow and the Orphan: a Case Study from Thirteenth-Century Barcelona.” Mosaic 14 (1993): 65–81.

            Klein, Elka. “The Widow’s Portion: Law, Custom and Marital Property among Medieval Catalan Jews.” Viator 31 (2000): 147–163.

            Kraemer, Joel L. “Spanish Ladies from the Cairo Genizah.” Mediterranean Historical Review 6 (1991): 237–266.

            Nichols, James Manfield. “The Arabic Verses of Qasmuna Bint Isma’il Ibn Bagdalah.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 13 (1981): 155–158.

            Orfali, Moisés. “Influencia de las sociedades cristiana y musulmana en la condición de la mujer judía.” Árabes, judías y cristianas: Mujeres en la Europa medieval, ed. Celia del Moral, 77–89. Granada: 1993.

            Levine Melammed, Renée. “Sephardi Women in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods.” Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, ed. Judith R. Baskin, 128–147. Detroit: 1999 (2nd ed.).

            Winer, Rebecca. “Family, Community, and Motherhood: Caring for Fatherless Children in the Jewish Community of Thirteenth-Century Perpignan.” Jewish History 16:1 (2002): 15–48.

            Yahalom, Yosef. “The Manyo Letters: The Handiwork of a Country Scribe from North Spain” (Hebrew). Sefunot 7 (1999): 23–33.

          • hiernonymous

            In short, there was no “Jewish Spanish Inquisition” – what you’ve just provided was nothing more or less shocking than the fact that the Jewish community in Spain enforced its own religious laws within its own community. There’s nothing new about that.

            What made the Spanish Inquisition noteworthy was its effort to enforce the coerced conversions of Muslims and Jews to Christianity during the Reconquista. I see nothing in your reference to indicate that anybody was coerced – or even encouraged – to convert to Judaism, and subsequently be subjected to official violence to ensure the sincerity of said conversion.

            Good on you for explaining your allusion and posting the references – had you done so from the get-go, a good amount of the tiresomeness of the thread would have been averted. Certainly, your comments hinted at a far darker and more significant set of events than you eventually produced.

            Illa liqaa!

          • paendragon

            I had never asserted the Jewish Inquisition in Spain had ever been an attempt, in any way, to convert others to Judaism by coercion or otherwise.

            All I’d said was that there was a barbaric, medieval Jewish Inquisition which had pre-dated and inspired the later, secular, (but allegedly “Catholic”) Christian one.

            So your latest attempted deflection or “gotcha!” moment is purely a strawman construct of your own imagination, as were most of your previous posts and “excursions.”

            You had simply seemed to have become so fixated on what you must have thought was a purely hypothetical product of my imagination, that I had temporarily decided to withhold the sourced and cited specifics from you, BECAUSE you were so obsessed with it, and had equally obsessively refused to ever acknowledge, admit, or address your own mistakes.

            I’ve found the old thread, and, should I ever feel myself to be in a sufficiently insomniac state, I’ll review and address it.

          • hiernonymous

            Now that we know what you were alluding to, what was your original point? You’re asserting more than your source supports – specifically, in referring to the Jewish activities as an “Inquisition,” and in identifying it as ‘the inspiration’ for the Spanish Inquisition – but set that aside for a moment. You’d claimed that the Spanish Jews and Christians got along well; I pointed out that you should consider the Spanish Inquisition when making such a claim; and you responded by identifying a “Jewish Spanish Inquisition.” What point were you trying to make?

          • paendragon

            The Spanish Inquisition was created by the rulers Ferdinand and Isabella, primarily to hunt down and expose “occulted” muslims posing as Christians, to speed the re-conquest of Spain (which has been violently invaded, enslaved and raped by muslims for nearly 1,000 years). it wasn’t a Catholic or primarily ‘Christian’ project, it was a secular, nationalistic one.

            It was also not specifically nor primarily aimed at either Jews or ‘witches.”

            Some people assert that, once the Jews had left Spain for Baghdad and Persia, they found life better there than in Spain.

            I’ve found some quotes to counter that canard:

            The empires of Cordoba and Baghdad were brutal and intolerant. Moses Maimonides LIVED IN Cordoba and wrote of the muslims’ domination there and elsewhere:

            “No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and HUMILIATING us. None has been able to REDUCE us as they have…. We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, their ABSURDITIES, which are beyond human power to bear…. We have done as our sages of blessed memory have instructed us, bearing the LIES and ABSURDITIES of Ishmael…. In spite of all this, we are not spared from the FEROCITY of their wickedness and their OUTBURSTS AT ANY TIME. On the contrary, the more we suffer and choose to CONCILIATE them, the more they choose to act BELLIGERENTLY toward us…”

            – Moses “RamBam” Maimonides was one of the greatest of Jewish philosophers.

            Does that sound like ‘a golden era’ for the Jews under islam?

            ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            And, by the way, your long list of sources is merely a cut-and-paste of the bibliography of this article: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/spain

            I don’t understand why you didn’t just list the URL of the article, or credit the author for her work. It certainly seems as if you have used someone else’s bibliography, on a somewhat different topic, to create the impression of having done a great deal more research than you actually did. I hope I’m wrong about that.

          • paendragon

            Interesting, but that’s not where I got it from. Perhaps she or my sources cited each other, unsourced. And I’ve lost my original sources (thanks to Fascbook, which I never use any more for exactly that same reason). I had gathered all that from an anti-islamic Spanish group site’s posts there, originally.

          • hiernonymous

            The identical list of citations, down to the selection of pages? I don’t think so. The key point here is that you didn’t do your own research, you simply copied a bibliography from another author – and, what’s more, you copied a tangential bibliography, most of the constituent elements of which are not related to your thesis.

          • paendragon

            Wrong. It was set out by someone else under the heading of the Jewish Inquisition in Spain, on a Spanish Facebook group website, a few years back. These are the links they had provided.

            And your original premise is wrong, as well: the Inquisition was NOT created to convert Jews and Muslims (or anyone else) to Christianity, it was created to test and expose those remaining “occulted,” hidden muslims who hadn’t left, and who were pretending to be Christians.

          • hiernonymous

            Nobody suggested the Inquisition was intended to convert anyone; it was intended to ensure that those who had converted remained converted, and sincerely so.

            So you lifted your bibliography from a web site that had lifted it from an article on Jewish women in Spain; not an improvement. Bottom line: you never read those articles, you didn’t do the research. It doesn’t really matter who you plagiarized, or what the second-order borrower did, the upshot is that you were intellectually dishonest. Shame on you.

          • paendragon

            When was the last time you felt compelled to read all the books listed in a book’s bibliography, idiot?

            And yes, you did assert that the purpose of the inquisition was to forcibly convert Jews and muslims to Christianity.

            Furthermore, you also asserted the main purpose of the various Crusades was to take over nations, in stead of what they were really commissioned for: to repel criminals from the lands they had already invaded.

            Everything you’ve quibbled about so far was based on false premises.

          • hiernonymous

            The last time I offered them as the sources underlying arguments or opinions I had offered, plagiarist.

          • paendragon

            “Plagiarist,” slanderer? Where did I say I’d claimed any of the quoted sources as my own, moron? And like you ever bothered to read all the books in anyone’s bibliography! Nice try, but such hyperbole only shows you to be a crass and nonsensical internet troll.

            Here’s why the Crusaders had as much right to the Middle Eastern lands as the Byzantines: Because of the Donation of Constantine, where all agreed the rights of the nobility to own (or manage) lands came from the Christian Church, holding them in trust for God.

            So nationality came in second behind religion – same as was copied into the islamic creed (only there it was only an excuse used by Muhammad to justify his many crimes). Christians have a responsibility to defend their lands from criminal invasions.

            And so the Emperor Alexius then called on the Western Crusaders to assist him re-claim the lands of his empire which had been violently invaded by the Arabian muslim criminals, and he offered those lands to them and their heirs as part of the deal. That he then reneged on his other initial offer to re-supply them (and, in fact, decided to keep them hostage unless and until they had assisted him to thwart his rivals’ ambitions, at which point they took what supplies they had originally been offered, and broke out to continue the original mission) didn’t change anything.

          • hiernonymous

            “Where did I say I’d claimed any of the quoted sources as my own, moron?”

            When you posted the list as your own research, without crediting the person who had actually done it.

            Here’s a good rule of thumb: if you try to create the impression that you’ve done something you haven’t, that you’ve written something that isn’t your own, that you’ve researched something you haven’t, you are being dishonest. Lashing out won’t change that.

            The Donation of Constantine was first exposed as a forgery in the 15th Century. Even if it had been the actual work of Constantine, it would not establish Constantine’s own right to the lands, which had been gained through conquest.

            “And like you ever bothered to read all the books in anyone’s bibliography!”

            I’ve never cited a source for my own research that I haven’t actually consulted. If I’m passing on someone else’s bibliography as a set of potential sources for someone else’s research, I credit the source of the work.

            Look, you were clearly trying to create the impression that you’d read books, conducted research, and established a basis for your comments that it is now clear you hadn’t done. You can rationalize, justify, and insult, or you can learn from your error.

          • paendragon

            1).I never even remotely implied it was my own research; go back and re-read the posts.

            I declared the topic existed, and then refused to let you have the sources because you were too obsessed with it, and it was a distractive side-issue digression anyway.

            2). Besides, since I found the list on an old Facebook group site a few years ago, who’s to say this person you’ve found didn’t just steal it from elsewhere to back up their wacko views, too?

            I made no error except telling you about the topic.

            And I didn’t cite the original Facebook poster’s identity (“BobTheDestroyer” or whatever) either, for obvious reasons.

            3). It doesn’t matter if the Donation of Constantine was exposed as a forgery, because everyone agreed to it, and that’s how they all – clergy and nobles – agreed to do things from then on, which continued on in force even to today.

            Re: “Even if it had been the actual work of Constantine, it would not establish Constantine’s own right to the lands, which had been gained through conquest.”

            Wrong, because Constantine was surrendering his ill-gotten territorial gains back to God, for the church to hold in trust and disburse as it saw fit.

          • hiernonymous

            “I made no error except telling you about the topic.”

            Rationalize and justify it is. Pity. Still, good to have the sham out in the open and the posturing exposed for what it was. I’m satisfied.

            “Wrong, because Constantine was surrendering his ill-gotten territorial gains back to God…”

            This makes no sense on two counts:
            1) He didn’t surrender the gains you now admit were ill-gotten back to God – the Donation was a forgery. It didn’t happen.

            2) The Romans didn’t take the land from God or from the Church; they took it from the Jews. If I steal everything you own, then donate it to the Church, the Church does not thereby gain moral or legal title to your property, however pious my intentions.

            Among the many problems with your approach to the issue is that you’ve yet to come up with a coherent or rational basis for justifying the Jewish conquest of the territory that doesn’t also justify subsequent conquests as well. Claiming that the inhabitants of Jericho, for example, were “criminals” because their religion was polytheistic or involved the use of idols is patently silly – to the extent that one wonders if your whole position is an intentional sham.

          • paendragon

            1). More libel; I asked you to prove I’d ever even implied I’d claimed that research as my own, and you haven’t because you can’t. Go read a bibliography or something constructive rather than obsess over pretended injustice.

            2). The Romans also didn’t donate Israel to the church; the church already owned it, as their inheritance from it’s King. Whether or not the Donation was a forgery, all the nobles and clergy went along with it if only for the convenience, and they still all do so to this day. The forgery did happen, because it exists – there was no real Donation, but the forged one was created and accepted by all.

            And of course Christianity itself had no hand in the conquest of any of the Roman lands, because it was pre-Christian pagan Romans who had done all the violent conquering.

            Re: The conquest of Jericho etc – you claim it was unjust because no reasons were given; I can as easily postulate it was just for the exact same reasons – they didn’t provide any justifications for it because everyone knew all about Jericho’s many crimes at the time; it would have been like having to list all of Hitler’s every crime whenever invoking the “nazis were bad” meme: tiresome and unneccessary.

            3). You’re still an idiot.

            ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            Just a link to the conversation – nothing to see here, citizen…

          • hiernonymous

            http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/spain

            Your impressive bibliography turns out to be Ms. Melammed’s impressive bibliography, on a slightly different topic.

          • hiernonymous

            Preserving this post:

            paendragon

            hiernonymous

            2 days ago

            The thread was becoming tiresome, so here it is:

            The Jewish Spanish Inquisition:

            When they have consolidated the power to do so, the rabbis of Judaism
            cut off the hands of those who ran afoul of their Halakhic law,
            including the hands of their own followers:

            “Politically, the position of Jews in the Christian Spanish
            kingdoms was the highest ever attained by Jews in any country (except
            some of the ta’ifas and under the Fatimids) before the 19th century.
            Many Jews served officially as Treasurers General to the kings of
            Castile, regional and general tax collectors, diplomats (representing
            their king in foreign courts, both Muslim and Christian, even outside
            Spain), courtiers and advisers to rulers and great noblemen. And in no
            other country except Poland did the Jewish community wield such great
            legal powers over the Jews or used them so widely and publicly,
            including the power to inflict capital punishment.

            And in no other country except Poland did the Jewish community wield
            such great legal powers over the Jews or used them so widely and
            publicly, including the power to inflict capital punishment. From the
            11th century the persecution of Karaites (a heretical Jewish sect) by
            flogging them to death if unrepentant was common in Castile. Jewish
            women who cohabited with Gentiles had their noses cut off by rabbis who
            explained that ‘in this way she will lose her beauty and her non-Jewish
            lover will come to hate her’. Jews who had the effrontery to attack a
            rabbinical judge had their hands cut off. Adulterers were imprisoned,
            after being made to run the gauntlet through the Jewish quarter. In
            religious disputes, those thought to be heretics had their tongues cut
            out.”

            (Professor Israel Shahak – Hebrew University of Jerusalem *Jewish History, Jewish Religion,* p.62)

            Get your primer here:

            http://www.bandung2.co.uk/book
            ;-)

            Other references:

            Ashtor, Eliyahu. The Jews of Moslem Spain. 3 vols. Philadelphia: 1984.

            Assis, Yom Tov. The Jews of Santa Coloma de Queralt. Jerusalem: 1988.

            Baer, Yitzhak. A History of the Jews in Christian Spain. 2 vols. Philadelphia: 1961, 1966, 1992.

            Beinart, Haim. Trujillo: A Jewish Community in Extremadura on the Eve of the Expulsion from Spain. Jerusalem: 1980.

            Burns, Robert I. Jews in the Notarial Culture: Latinate Wills in Mediterranean Spain, 1250–1350. Berkeley: 1996.

            Dillard, Heath. Daughters of the Reconquest: Women in Castilian Town Society, 1100–1300. Cambridge: 1984.

            Grossman, Avraham. Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Europe in the Middle Ages (Hebrew). Jerusalem: 2001.

            Hinojosa Montalvo, José. The Jews of the Kingdom of Valencia. Jerusalem: 1993.

            Klein, Elka. Power and Patrimony: the Jewish Community of Barcelona, 1050–1250. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University: 1996.

            Lamdan, Ruth. A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria and Egypt in the Sixteenth Century. Leiden: 2000.

            Leroy, Beatriz. The Jews of Navarre in the Late Middle Ages. Jerusalem: 1985.

            Levine Melammed, Renée. Heretics or Daughters of Israel: The Crypto-Jewish Women of Castile. New York: 1999.

            Mirrer, Louise. Women, Jews and Muslims in the Texts of Reconquest Castile. Ann Arbor: 1996.

            Regne, Jean. History of the Jews in Aragon. Jerusalem: 1978.

            Roth, Cecil. Doña Gracia of the House of Nasi. Philadelphia: 1977.

            Winer, Rebecca. Women, Wealth and Community: Christian, Jewish and
            Muslim Women in Thirteenth-Century Aragon. Aldershot, England: 2003.
            Articles

            Assaf, Simha. “The Anusim of Spain and Portugal in the Responsa Literature” (Hebrew). Me’assef Zion 5 (1933): 19–60.

            Assis, Yom Tov. “The ‘Ordinance of Rabbenu Gershom’ and Polygamous Marriages in Spain” (Hebrew). Zion 46 (1981): 251–277.

            Assis, Yom Tov. “Sexual Behaviour in Mediaeval Hispano-Jewish
            Society.” Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, edited by
            Ada Rapoport Albert and Steven J. Zipperstein, 25–59. London: 1988.

            Beinart, Haim. “Judios y conversos en Casarrubios del Monte.”
            Homenaje a Juan Prado: Miscelánea de estudios biblicos y hebraicos, ed.
            L. Alvarez Verdes, 645–657. Madrid: 1975.

            Beinart, Haim. “Herrera: Its Conversos and Jews” (Hebrew).
            Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies B, 53–85.
            Jerusalem: 1981.

            Bellamy, James A. “Qasmuna the Poetess: Who was She?” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.2 (1983): 423–424.

            Cardoner Planas, A. “Seis mujeres hebreas practicando la medicina en el reino de Aragon.” Sefarad 9 (1949): 442–443.

            Fleisher, Ezra. “About Dunash ben Labrat and his Wife and Son.”
            Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature (Hebrew) 5 (1984): 189–202.

            Grossman, Avraham. “From the Heritage of Spanish Jewry: Treatment of
            the ‘Killer’ Wife in the Middle Ages” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 67:4 (1998):
            531–561.

            Klein, Elka. “Protecting the Widow and the Orphan: a Case Study from Thirteenth-Century Barcelona.” Mosaic 14 (1993): 65–81.

            Klein, Elka. “The Widow’s Portion: Law, Custom and Marital Property among Medieval Catalan Jews.” Viator 31 (2000): 147–163.

            Kraemer, Joel L. “Spanish Ladies from the Cairo Genizah.” Mediterranean Historical Review 6 (1991): 237–266.

            Nichols, James Manfield. “The Arabic Verses of Qasmuna Bint Isma’il
            Ibn Bagdalah.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 13 (1981):
            155–158.

            Orfali, Moisés. “Influencia de las sociedades cristiana y musulmana
            en la condición de la mujer judía.” Árabes, judías y cristianas: Mujeres
            en la Europa medieval, ed. Celia del Moral, 77–89. Granada: 1993.

            Levine Melammed, Renée. “Sephardi Women in the Medieval and Early
            Modern Periods.” Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, ed. Judith R.
            Baskin, 128–147. Detroit: 1999 (2nd ed.).

            Winer, Rebecca. “Family, Community, and Motherhood: Caring for
            Fatherless Children in the Jewish Community of Thirteenth-Century
            Perpignan.” Jewish History 16:1 (2002): 15–48.

            Yahalom, Yosef. “The Manyo Letters: The Handiwork of a Country Scribe from North Spain” (Hebrew). Sefunot 7 (1999): 23–33.

          • paendragon

            Truly you are an idiot.

          • hiernonymous

            Your posts are getting shorter without losing substance. Good trend.

          • paendragon

            Any yours trend the reverse. Beware the sin of hubris.

            ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            (moved comment to better location)

          • paendragon

            Only if you admit that:

            1) “Plague” is a generic term. The people who experienced them in the middle ages didn’t know enough about medicine to restrict the conditon to the terms of one of its symptoms; to them, all plagues (including the biblical “plagues” of locusts) came as punishments from god.

            Hence, there was no pre-condition attached to them (nobody assumed the locusts involved must be officially “bubonic” locusts to qualify, for instance)!

            Also, even the term “bubonic” only referred to the most visible symptoms, to the “buboes” or pustules.

            2) Moses, (not the wholly irrelevant contention of JOSua versus JOSeph,) led 7 of the 9 defensive genocides the Jews committed to clear the path to their return to their original homeland, Israel, in Canaan.

            That the Romans, MUCH later decided to re-name the place on only their own maps, to “Syria Palastina,” has nothing to do with the fact that the location of the Jews’ other historical enemies, the Philistines, lived hundreds of miles North, near Antioch, in PHILISTIA. Modern archaeologists all attest to this FACT.

            So “Palestine” =/= “Philistia,” and there has never been a so-called “Palestinian people” in the area, OTHER than the Israeli Jews.

            Certainly not the displaced Egyptians now occupying Gaza, much less the unrelated, exiled Syrian Arabs squatting across the Jordan river on it’s West Bank, in JUDEA and HEBRON.

            So, simply admit you’ve learned to think categorically, and I’ll provide you with a veritable trove of links to the “Jewish Inquisitons” in Spain … which you can’t currently get on Google or Wiki, because they only exist in scholarly books and articles. I’ll even throw in a free .PDF link, just for you!

            And all for the low-low price of admitting you were wrong.

            ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            When one is using the term plague in such a non-specific sense, one refers to “a plague.” Here’s what you had to say: “…were the ones who had so-decimated the natives with the plague…”

            Note your use of the phrase “the plague,” which refers, not to a generic disease, but the bubonic plague. One might arguably refer to smallpox as a plague, but never as “the plague.”

            It’s not clear what a “defensive genocide” might be, but it’s perfectly clear that you’re attempting to deflect attention from two basic errors. First, I noted that God charged Joshua with the conquest of the Promised Land; you attempted to correct this notion (“surely you meant ‘Moses?!””), but you were simply wrong; Moses was never given the task of conquering the Promised Land, and never set foot in it. I offered you the verses in which Joshua was specifically given the task by God.

            You compounded the error thus:

            “Joshua is the one who led his family OUT of Isreal, and down into Egypt, in search of work and food.

            Moses led them back.”

            You’ve yet to explain that little humdinger, though you’ve striven manfully to divert attention from it.

            “So “Palestine” =/= “Philistia,””

            You seem to be energetically responding to an argument that nobody has made. We’ve got enough loose ends to tie up without following you down the “Palestinian” rabbit hole. The relevance of Rome, and its renaming of Syria Palestina, lies not in the link to the modern name Palestine, but to the fact that Judea was conquered by the Romans, and through the Romans came to be a Christian territory. In short, any Christian claim to Jerusalem was a consequence of Roman conquest, which you have already argued is not a legitimate basis for establishing ownership. The Crusades, then, could not have been ‘defensive’ – at least, not to the extent that they were aimed at re-conquering Jerusalem.

            As for your “Jewish Spanish Inquisition,” you made a claim, and it’s your credibility on the line. Presumably, you embarked on this whole “bargaining” tangent with the thought that it would provide you a face-saving excuse for not supporting your assertion. You needn’t have bothered. You can either support your comments or you can’t; if you can, well and good. If you can’t, there’s no need or point to prepare an elaborate smokescreen for your failure to do so.

            And as an odd aside: two quotes from your comments on this same thread:

            “And the Jews had their own Inquisition in Spain…That you can’t find it on Google or Wikipedia shows how truly lazy you are, as far as conducting serious research goes.”

            “…and I’ll provide you with a veritable trove of links to the “Jewish Inquisitons” in Spain … which you can’t currently get on Google or Wiki, because they only exist in scholarly books and articles.”

            Emphasis added.

          • paendragon

            “The” plague is whatever plague is most important to those who suffered from it, in that specific, circumstantial and situational context. “The” plague is no more limited to the bubonic variety than to the one of locusts, etc.

            Moses commanded and committed 7 of the 9 genocides clearing the way to the Jews’ return to the Promised Land.

            Joshua was a piker in comparison, so again you were WRONG. And yes, I conflated Joshua with Joseph – once.

            The fact that the nation or empire of Rome decided to hold it’s conquered territories after the majority of its populace had converted to a different (pagan to Christian) religion, has nothing to do with why I said the Crusaders had a right to re-conquer the place from the muslim invaders, which was simply that Christianity is the largest branch of reformed Judaism, and its founder, Jesus, lived and died in the area, so holy sites were established in his name (not to mention he was the king of the Jews).

            A defensive genocide is what the USA did to Japan: you destroy an enemy which is religiously committed to suicide in order to wipe you out; no quarter is asked for, nor given.

            Admit to your errors, and I’ll grace you with the links and sources, since you still seem unable to find them on your own.

          • hiernonymous

            “The” plague is whatever plague is most important to those who suffered from it, in that specific, circumstantial and situational context. “The” plague is no more limited to the bubonic variety than to the one of locusts, etc.

            One can only suggest that you read more. “Plague” will not be associated with locusts absent “of locusts.” You might find the World Health Organizations usage instructive: http://www.who.int/topics/plague/en/

            Plague is a bacterial disease, caused by Yersinia pestis, which primarily affects wild rodents. It is spread from one rodent to another by fleas. Humans bitten by an infected flea usually develop a bubonic form of plague, which is characterized by a bubo, i.e. a
            swelling of the lymph node draining the flea bite site.

            If the bacteria reach the lungs, the patient develops pneumonia (pneumonic plague), which is then transmissible from person to person through infected droplets spread by coughing. Initial symptoms of
            bubonic plague appear 7–10 days after infection.

            If diagnosed early, bubonic plague can be successfully treated with antibiotics. Pneumonic plague, on the other hand, is one of the most deadly infectious diseases; patients can die 24 hours after infection. The mortality rate depends on how soon treatment is started, but is always very high.

            “Joshua was a piker in comparison, so again you were WRONG.”

            Well, no, twice over. I commented that Joshua was charged by God with the conquest of the Promised Land. You claimed that it was Moses. Let’s look at the ways in which you were wrong:

            1) The explicit charge by God is presented in the Book of Joshua.

            2) Moses was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

            3) Joshua led the conquest of the Promised Land.

            In short, your attempted pedantry was factually incorrect, and you’ve been spending an inordinate amount of effort and time in trying to recast your comments. Moses led the Israelites during their years of wandering; he led them during their end run around the Canaanites; he never led the conquest of the Promised Land. Your correction was in error; live with it.

            “A defensive genocide is what the USA did to Japan”

            You seem to be as unclear on the meaning of “genocide” as you are on “the plague.”

            “Admit to your errors, and I’ll grace you with the links and sources, since you still seem unable to find them on your own.”

            Presumably, you were so eager to post a response that you missed my earlier comments on this subject.

          • paendragon

            The generic term “plague” has been used throughout history, and in many contexts, so, NO, I don’t think it can be best defined by reference to a narrow modern interpretation.

            Whether or not it was Moses or Joshua (or Joshua or Joseph who led the original exodus) who wiped out their Canaanite neighbours is besides the point: the point being that the Jews originated in Canaan, and it was to Canaan that they later returned. Your quibblings cannot long distract from this fact.

            Statutes of limitations are inherently, objectively wrong, in that they subjectively void the culpability of criminals, thus giving them a false “legal” right to commit their crimes, so long as they can get away with them for a certain time.

          • hiernonymous

            “The generic term “plague” has been used throughout history, and in many
            contexts, so, NO, I don’t think it can be best defined by reference to a
            narrow modern interpretation.”

            Perhaps if you could find some use of the term “the plague” to mean smallpox, this would be more convincing.

            “Whether or not it was Moses or Joshua (or Joshua or Joseph who led the original exodus) who wiped out their Canaanite neighbours is besides the point…”

            Then it beggars belief that you worked so hard to make it the point.

            “…the point being that the Jews originated in Canaan, and it was to Canaan that they later returned…”

            That glosses over a few things, the most significant of which is that the Jews were only one among several contemporaneous inhabitants of Canaan at the time they left. This is important, as casting their return as the reclaiming of their rightful land from interlopers would be incorrect; the people they conquered the land from had just as much right to it – and arguably more, as those people had never abandoned it – and were killed and driven off by conquest. And I believe that we established that conquest does not give one title to the land, however fervently one believes that the conquest was approved by one’s deity.

            “Statutes of limitations are inherently, objectively wrong, in that they subjectively void the culpability of criminals…”

            That’s an assertion, not an argument. In our conception of justice, some crimes are considered more serious than others. We distinguish between misdemeanors and felonies; we punish some crimes with fines, others with jail, others with long-term imprisonment; and still others with death. We thus implicitly acknowledge that not all crimes and not all harms are equal. This ties closely to one of the underlying purposes of the statute of limitations: that for more minor offenses, there is a limit to how long one should live in fear of discovery or punishment.

            An entirely separate rationale is that it becomes more difficult for the accused to defend himself with the passage of time; witnesses die or cannot be found, memories grow dim, etc. Keep in mind that without the statutes of limitations, one could charge entirely innocent people with decades-old petty offenses for which there is the slightest circumstantial evidence.

            That you don’t approve of these arguments does not render them invalid. Nothing about the statutes of limitations grants anyone a ‘legal right’ to commit crime. It simply establishes a reasonable time frame in which one must be prosecuted.

            And let’s keep in mind that your use of statutes of limitations is an analogy; the topic was the length of time that must pass before a conquest gains some legitimacy. Don’t confuse analogy with identity. Perhaps you would be better served by addressing your topic directly. If you mean to argue that any given piece of land belongs rightfully only to whoever first set foot on it, however long ago that might be, that’s an interesting proposition, though I don’t know how we establish who that was for all parts of the world.

            In the specific case of the Crusades, arguing that followers of the Christian religion – a relative newcomer among the religions and customs of the Middle East – had proper title to the Levant and Israel / Judea / Palestine, it’s difficult to square that with the apparent thrust of your statutes of limitations analogy. To argue that a Frankish king gains, by virtue of his religious convictions, title to Jerusalem – well, that’ll take some doing, but knock yourself out, if you so choose.

          • paendragon

            Your re-assertions that “We’ve always done it that way,” is in no way an argument on the objective merits, it’s only another “appeal to authority” critical-thinking logical fallacy.

            i.e: Just “Tradition” again. Tautology. That’s all you’ve got.

            You still think that merely substituting a few new synonyms constitutes new reasons in your arguments:

            “Nothing about the statutes of limitations grants anyone a ‘legal right’ to commit crime. It simply establishes a reasonable time frame in which one must be prosecuted.”

            Actually, refusing to prosecute does indeed grant one a legal right to commit a crime, pretty-much by definition.

            And, as for “one could charge entirely innocent people with decades-old petty offenses for which there is the slightest circumstantial evidence,” well then, bring them on; no evidence = no conviction, right?

            As opposed to: “I was robbed and reported it at once, but no suspects were found. Decades later, one of the gang of thieves confessed on his death-bed, upon which time it was made clear they had all become rich from the proceeds, while I, deprived of my treasure, sank into poverty. Therefore, I now demand my right to have them jailed and to inherit my property back, and the accrued proceeds of their crimes as well.” JUSTICE.

            PS: That Frankish king, by virtue of being a follower of the last rightful king of the Jews, gains title to Jerusalem in his name. Especially since the Jewish government of the time had abdicated their claims by murdering said king.

            As opposed to any muslims, whose founder could only claim to have visited the place in a dream one night.
            ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            “Your re-assertions that “We’ve always done it that way,” is in no way an argument on the objective merits, it’s only another “appeal to authority” critical-thinking logical fallacy.”

            You’ve built a straw man. I offered two reasons as examples, neither of which involved “we’ve always done it that way,” and neither of which you’ve addressed. Perhaps what’s confusing you is that in noting that you haven’t addressed them, I note that your personal dislike of those rationales does not constitute a rebuttal. You may want to peruse Toussie v United States (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7913020475133973693), in which the Supreme Court lays out essentially the same two rationales, as well as noting that a statute of limitations encourages law enforcement to move swiftly. Note also that “we’ve always done it that way” was not cited as one of the reasons for such statutes, though you should probably take into consideration that precedent is an important principle in law, and for good reason – a legal system in which principles are changed on a whim would be one in which one could never count on understanding or acting within the law.

            One might note that writing “justice” in all capital letters does not make an argument, or what passes for an argument, more compelling. Rather than responding to your fictional story of woe with one invented to illustrate a countervailing view, perhaps I could ask you to offer an actual case of such an injustice that illustrates how the harm of a statute of limitations exceeds its value, and demonstrate that such harm is widespread an inherent in such statutes?

            I notice that several threads of the conversation seem to be dropping away. Have you abandoned your “Jewish Spanish Inquisition?” Have you become so enthralled with the legal concept of ‘statutes of limitations’ that you’ve lost interest in the topic that brought them into the conversation – i.e., are you unwilling to articulate just what, exactly, establishes legitimate claim to a particular piece of ground? Are you still mulling over how the French got title to Jerusalem? Were you unable to find any instances of a writer or speaker using an unelaborated “the plague” as a reference to smallpox?

          • paendragon

            I dare you to copy your original answers and line them up – all you did was use synonyms for the concept of “tradition.”

          • hiernonymous

            No, they protect the rights of the accused. Imagine trying to defend yourself from a forty-year-old accusation of petty theft when exculpatory evidence has long been lost or destroyed, memories are uncertain, and witnesses dead or gone. Nor should individuals have to live in fear for their entire lives over misdemeanors. At any rate, your personal take on the issue is irrelevant; statutes of limitations are well incorporated into common law and civil law, whether you think they should be or no.

            So, in the OP, we have: 1. The problem of defending stale accusations, 2. the issue of the injustice of permanent fear, and 3. a note that such statutes are part of the law, whether you like it or not. You apparently read only the last sentence.

            No, it’s not “only traditionalist.” It’s recognition that in pretty much every legal system for millenia, it’s been recognized that there are more factors in play than you are willing to recognize. An unduly draconian system generates injustices of its own, out of proportion to the harms it is established to address. That you don’t like it is irrelevant; you certainly haven’t shown statutes of limitations to be ‘wrong.’

            Again, you seem to suffer from hasty reading. Having previously cited two specific arguments in support of statutes of limitations which you ignored, I point out that our legal systems have not ignored them. You are reading “they are traditional because they’re right” as “they’re right because they’re traditional,” and the two sentences are not equivalent.

            Why, no. If the only reason I had offered had been “it’s always been done that way,” you might have had a point – but I’ve offered some of the reasons that statutes of limitations are so widely accepted that they are traditional, which is not the same thing at all. You don’t like those reasons, but that’s neither here nor there.

            That’s an assertion, not an argument. In our conception of justice, some crimes are considered more serious than others. We distinguish between misdemeanors and felonies; we punish some crimes with fines, others with jail, others with long-term imprisonment; and still others
            with death. We thus implicitly acknowledge that not all crimes and not all harms are equal. This ties closely to one of the underlying purposes of the statute of limitations: that for more minor offenses, there is a limit to how long one should live in fear of discovery or
            punishment.

            An entirely separate rationale is that it becomes more difficult for the accused to defend himself with the passage of time; witnesses die or cannot be found, memories grow dim, etc. Keep in mind that without the
            statutes of limitations, one could charge entirely innocent people with decades-old petty offenses for which there is the slightest circumstantial evidence.

            That you don’t approve of these arguments does not render them invalid. Nothing about the statutes of limitations grants anyone a ‘legal right’ to commit crime. It simply establishes a reasonable time frame in which one must be prosecuted.

            Was that what you wanted to see, but were unable or unwilling to do yourself?

          • paendragon

            You said “people believe them” and other synonyms; and Disqus has so-truncated this thread that no, I can’t retreive the original posts from here any more.

          • hiernonymous

            Still crickets? Really?

          • paendragon

            Still refuse to admit you were wrong about everything?
            Moses led the invasions. Plague is a generic term. etc.
            Rome has nothing to do with Israel. Statutes of limitations only ever benefit the criminals, traditions (and all that word’s various synonyms you choose) notwithstanding that FACT.

          • hiernonymous

            See my comments below. Moses led the tribes around the periphery of the Promised Land; he never lived to see the conquest of the land itself. You’re squirming.

            (Edited to add that, whatever you’ve done to your profile, your posts to me no longer are listed on my “posts to you” page. This makes it increasingly unlikely that I’ll see your responses, a fact that will no doubt be a relief to you.)

          • paendragon

            I notice you’re still quibbling over whether it was Joshua or Joseph who, as you claim, led the Jews’ conquests of the Promised Land, in an attempt to deflect attention from your own initial error, which was that it was either of them, when in fact it was always Moses who was the genocidal warlord.

            ;-)

          • hiernonymous

            Moses died before setting foot in the Promised Land. By Jewish and Christian tradition, it was Joshua who was charged with leading the conquest.

            Joshua 1:1-9:

            1 After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord said to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, 2 “Moses my servant is dead. Now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the people of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory. 5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you. 6 Be strong and courageous, for you shall cause this people to inherit the land that I swore to their fathers to give them. 7 Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success[a] wherever you go. 8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. 9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”

            Your comment following my allusion to the above command was:

            “Joshua!”? Surely, you meant “Moses”?! The reason the land was Promised to them, was that it was theirs originally, and they hadn’t had the faith to remain there when times got tough, so they’d foolishly left for Egypt looking for work.

            Joshua only left Israel to go to Egypt because of starvation.

            You have clearly mixed up your biblical figures. Moses led the exodus from Egypt; in the Jewish tradition, God was quite explicit that he would not enter the Promised Land. It was Joshua whom God charged with leading the conquest.

            Not sure where you got your story of Joshua leaving a then-nonexistent Israel to go to Egypt; you appear to be confusing Joshua with Joseph and his family.

            “;-)”

            Was this post another joke? It’s hard to tell.

          • paendragon

            Clearly, you’re an idiot. Moses led the genocides on the way back to the Promised Land, clearing those of their former neighbours who tried to block their return out of the way.
            Joshua may have led the cleanup crew once they got there.

          • hiernonymous

            “Clearly, you’re an idiot.”

            Perhaps; if so, it’s the idiot getting the facts straight.

            “Moses led the genocides on the way back to the Promised Land, clearing those of their former neighbours who tried to block their return out of the way.
            Joshua may have led the cleanup crew once they got there.”

            You appear to be one of those fellows who is convinced that, having said something egregiously incorrect, believes he can save face by posturing and adjusting the story slightly from post to post. Save your figurative breath.

            I’ve already posted for you the relevant verse of the Bible in which Joshua is given command of the invasion of the Promised Land by God; so much for the Jewish and Christian traditions. Moses in no wise led the conquest of the Promised Land.

            You have yet to explain your posts about Joshua leaving Israel (which, I note again, is an anachronism on your part, as Israel had not yet been established for Joshua to have left).

            Instead of continuing to invent Biblical traditions, you might consider reading and citing them. You need some cattle to go with that hat.

  • Jenny Hunter
    • defcon 4

      Wow, what a video.

      • Texas Patriot

        No surprises there.

  • Drakken

    May the Israeli’s finally deal with those islamic savages and give them a taste of Carthage.

    • frjohnmorris

      The only way for peace is for Israel to learn to live with the Palestinians and to recognize their civil rights. Remember not all Palestinians are Muslims and do not support terrorism. There are no Christian terrorists or suicide bombers. It is a crime against humanity to argue for the destruction of a whole people.

      • Drakken

        The only peace your pali friends are going to give the jews is the peace of the grave, so effem, let Israel finally rid themselves of the Islamic menace once and all time.

        • frjohnmorris

          What about the Palestinian Christians? Do you want to see Christians driven from the land of Christ’s birth, life giving death and resurrection? That would be a great injustice that no true Christian could support.

          • Drakken

            There are not enough of them to make any difference other than support their Islamic friends in their pursuit of just killing jews.

          • frjohnmorris

            Christians are not terrorists and do not support the terrorists. They do not believe in killing Jews or anyone else. The terrorists are all Muslims.

          • Drakken

            Funny thing is, your pali Christians help the Islamic jihad against Israel and the Christians in Lebanon help the Israeli’s, go figure.

          • frjohnmorris

            The Maronite Roman Catholics helped Israel in Lebanon, not the Greek Orthodox. No Orthodox Christian supports Islamic jihad against anyone anywhere. You still do not realize that not all Palestinians are Muslim. There are many Palestinian Christians. The Palestinian Christians do not support or commit acts of terrorism. All the terrorists are Muslims. They want their freedom and the Zionist oppression of their people to end, but as Christians do not believe in terrorism. Terrorism is not only morally wrong, it has also hurt the Palestinian cause.

          • Drakken

            Obviously you never heard of George Habash. Pali Christian of the PLO. There are still many like him. May he rot in hell.

  • defcon 4

    There was kibbutz that was similarly annihilated by the muslimes, with not a single survivor left to testify as to what happened, unlike in Deir Yassin.

    • frjohnmorris

      The difference is that the Arabs were defending their homeland from a foreign invasion.

      • defcon 4

        You mean the land they stole from the rightful owners right? What about Medina AHmed? ARe you and your musllime brethen planning on giving that back to the Jews anytime soon?

      • Drakken

        The arabs lost, the Israeli’s won, it is as simple as that.

    • hiernonymous

      Which kibbutz are you talking about?

      And what’s your point? That Dir Yassin stops being an atrocity if you can only find something worse the ‘other side’ has done?

      Sounds like 7th grade ethics to me.

      • Drakken

        You call it an atrocity, I call it well earned and well deserved warfare.

        • hiernonymous

          If you think women and children deserve to be murdered, I can only say that it’s a good thing you’re not in the service.

          • Drakken

            I never said that, but I do know our hearts and minds program and nation building is a complete utter failure and has been from the beginning. I was USMC for a number of years thank you very much.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, yes, you did say that. Dir Yassin involved the murder of women and children; you claimed that Dir Yassin was “well deserved” warfare.

            “I was USMC for a number of years thank you very much.”

            I have no idea what you mean by “a number of years;” I’ve inferred from your earlier comments that yours was a single-term enlistment. Consider yourself patted on the back for your stint, and consider me grateful that the deplorable ethical position you just expressed is staining the name of Academi and not one of our services.

          • Drakken

            It was 4 tours thank you very much, so spare me the bloody condensation. When it comes right down too it, I really don’t care how many of them are caught up in the fog of war. It comes down to the safety and well being of my troops before I consider theirs. That is why I have never lost a man, nor do I care too.

          • hiernonymous

            Why do you hide behind circumlocutions and euphemisms? Nobody at Dir Yassin was ‘caught up in the fog of war.’ They were specifically and intentionally targeted, with the express purpose of terrifying the surviving Arab civilians living on the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem corridor into fleeing. Nobody was protecting their troops’ safety by rousting civilians from their houses and killing them.

            “It was 4 tours thank you very much, so spare me the bloody condensation.”

            I swear to you that I was not trying to get you wet.

            Still not sure what you mean by “tours.” 4 enlistments? How many years are we talking about? And what do you do now? When someone brags that he’s never lost a man, it doesn’t mean much in the vacuum in which we’re currently operating.

    • defcon 4

      I’m sorry Ahmed, the Jews who you were seeking to annihilate gave your muslime brethren the chance to surrender, they didn’t, so they got spanked. So sad, too bad.

  • RonMar

    What part of there never has been a Palestine, thus no such thing as Palestinians do you not get?
    If you want to argue the point Mr. johnny history with your many titles and Ph.D. post here now who first used the world Palestine for The Holy Land, when, where, how and most importantly why?
    Also post here now why the Arab Muslims did not establish a Palestine in 1948 pursuant to UN Resolution 181? By that Resolution Modern Israel was affirmed as a continuation of the homeland of the Hebrews/Jews and Israel had been, was then, is now and will be along with Israelis of many faith beliefs, etc., but not Palestine and no Palestinians.

    You are pushing an Islamic jihadist propaganda lie, a myth, hoax, and you know it.
    I’m also curious about why you have chosen to attack me personally, say I am not a Christian, question that I am a Christian missionary, right this second, in The Holy Land among the people who belong here?
    Are you even vaguely aware that there would not be any Christians, Christian churches if it were not for Jews, e.g., Jesus, Joseph, Mary, all of the original disciples, Paul and others?

    If you are a Christian, you are in fact a Judeo-Christian no matter what cult, sect, denomination, etc. you want to call yourself otherwise. Those are cold, hard facts you cannot change ever.

    You really need to wake up, johnny, get over yourself, your titles, college degrees, get real and get saved before it is too late for you and stop helping the Islamic jihadists so much. You do know they are murdering your Orthodox people and destroying their churches.

    What is wrong with you, johnny? Wake up!

    • frjohnmorris

      There are over 4 million people who call themselves Palestinians. You simply cannot ignore the existence of these people or pretend that they do not exist. The Palestinians did not accept the UN partition plan of 1948 because it was unfair to the Palestinians and would force too many Palestinians to live under Zionist domination.

      The Orthodox Church has kept its Jewish heritage more than any other Christian Church Our services come directly from the Synagogue, Temple and other Jewish practices. After all the Church is the true Israel and the followers of Christ the true heirs of Abraham.

      I am fully aware on the atrocities being committed by Muslims against Christians. I only wish that most other Americans knew what I know about what is happening in Syria. In all his speeches, I have yet to hear Obama express any concern about the persecution of the Syrian Christians. Instead he is providing arms and other aid to the very people who are persecuting the Syrian Christians and who have declared that their goal is to turn Syria into an Islamic state ruled according to Sharia Law. If that does happen, the US government will be partially responsible.
      No I do not think that you are a true Christian, because of the hatred and pride expressed in your posts. A true follower of Christ would not take the attitude towards the Palestinians or any other people that you have.

      • RonMar

        I don’t ignore the people, but they are not “Palestinians” since there never has been, is not now and unlikely ever to be a “Palestine.”
        This is your repetition of yet another Islamic jihadist propaganda lie – “The Palestinians did not accept the UN partition plan of 1948 because it was unfair to the Palestinians and would force too many Palestinians to live under Zionist domination.”
        In fact, Yasser Arafat was forced by the leaders of the surrounding Islamic-dominated countries in depth to refuse to form a Palestine since that would recognize Modern Israel from Ancient Israel as the legitimate nation-state that it was, is and will be forever as the homeland of the Hebrews/Jews.

        Arafat is typical of the so-called “Palestinians.” He was not even from the region but rather a north African country, Tunisia or elsewhere.
        “The Orthodox Church has kept its Jewish heritage more than any other Christian Church Our services come directly from the Synagogue, Temple and other Jewish practices.” – And you know this how? Have you ever been to, participated in and at Synagogue worship services? To a masjid/mosque for Islamic worship services?

        “… the Church [only your church?] is the true Israel and
        the followers of Christ the true heirs of Abraham.” – Really? And you hold these services with parishioners in attendance typically on Shabat, the Sabbath, or some other day? LOL.
        I do not care one iota what you think about me or my Christianity. I serve only one master, johnny, and you are not Him, far from Him. I know you are not a Christian. You are a charlatan, a fake, fraud who has wasted your life, misled others – may God bless their souls – and full “of the hatred and pride expressed in your posts” of which you accuse me.

        That is called projection, johnny, and is a sure sign of your insanity.

        “A true follower of Christ [which you clearly are not] would not take the attitude towards the [Hebrews/Jews, Muslims, Druze, Christians, other religious people than your cult] or any other people that you have” and so obviously will continue to do despite what I have tried to teach you.
        You have refused to answer my questions, to engage in real dialogue with me or anyone else. You have nothing, johnny, but your parroting of Islamic jihadist propaganda lies and repeated attempted slanders against other people that you consider beneath your lofty self with your self-inflated view of your titles and “education” – all pathetic wastes worth nothing to the Lord, God, Jesus the Christ and the Holy Spirit.

        • frjohnmorris

          If you would take the time to study the history of Christian worship you would know that what I wrote is true. The Roman Catholic Mass also shows the influence of the Jewish heritage of Christianity. Take some time to study a subject before you make a fool of yourself by making stupid comments about it.

          Yes, I have been to Synagogue services. I have never been to a service in a mosque.
          As far as to whether or not I am a Christian, it is not for you to judge. You would know that if you really were a Christian. I was ordained to the Priesthood by an Archbishop who was consecrated by the Patriarch of Antioch, the successor to Sts. Peter and Paul the founders of the Church of Antioch. Who, if anyone, ordained you?

          The Palestinians that I have known have not had a very good opinion of Arafat.

          You cannot ignore the rights of 4 million people. What ever you want to call them they are human beings with rights. Their ancestors have lived in the Holy Land for centuries.
          It is quite obvious that you have never read the New Testament, or if you have read it, you do not understand it. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets and his followers the true Israel and heirs of Abraham. That is the teaching of the New Testament.

          You should put American interests first, not loyalty to a foreign country. it is time for us to look after our own national interests and to cease allowing the Zionist lobby to determine our foreign policy in the Middle East.

          • RonMar

            “If you would take the time to study the history of Christian worship you would know that what I wrote is true. The Roman Catholic Mass also shows the influence of the Jewish heritage of Christianity. Take some time to
            study a subject before you make a fool of yourself by making stupid comments about it.”
            1. johnny, study of the history of, present and probable future Christian worship was part of the courses I took in seminary for one of my two graduate degrees. I have also engaged in a since age of reason lifelong study of contemporary religions worldwide including worship practices and styles and have participated in many of them.
            2. I did not question the truth of what you wrote. I asked you questions that you have refused to answer like all the other questions I have asked of you. At least you should be able to say whether or not your cult is a Sabbath keeper or not, one whose primary worship day is on the wrong day – Sunday.
            3. I have not made a fool of myself, but you have in every post you have made to the present one.
            4. In your half-vast, smart-mouth opinion exactly what “stupid comments [did I make] about it” – whatever you mean by “it” in your vague, crappy, intended to deflect and deceive, avoidance writing style?
            You should join Muslims at masjid worship, especially on Friday evenings, and/or prayer times to learn their practices and the significance to them of their practices.

            Did you participate in the synagogue services or only sit there like a condemning of the Jews lump on a log?
            It is for me to judge whether or not you are a Christian as you have judged me. Clergy cannot do their job without making such judgments.
            Your titles mean nothing to me, nor to the Lord, God, Jesus the Christ either as you are highly likely to discover some day to your great unhappiness.
            It is none of your business who ordained me, especially since you ask in such a snotty, doubting way, but fyi, I was ordained upon graduation from one of the finest seminaries in the US by the ordained president of the seminary, with participation, and in the presence of the faculty, staff, other graduates, students, family members and friends. It was a blessed day among many I have enjoyed in my lifetime and still do.
            I do not “ignore the rights of 4 million people,” or any people at all for that matter, and neither do the Jews, Israelis in Israel, contrary to your Islamic jihadist propaganda lies.
            I don’t “want to call them” anything other than brother and sister “human beings with rights.”
            The Holy Land is the homeland of the Hebrews, Jews who have been present there since they crossed the Jordan River into the area of and then into Jericho, even before then some lived there. They have also lived there continuously in significant numbers, again contrary to your Islamic jihadist propaganda lies.
            At no time since their first presence there has The Holy Land – Israel (and Judea) – been void of Jews in significant numbers despite the “exiles,” Roman pogroms, diaspora, etc. It is their Land, and they will never give it up willingly. You can bet your life on that.
            FYI, Israel is possibly the most cosmopolitan country in the world with a great mix of racial, ethnic and religious beliefs groups.
            Furthermore if it were not for the Islamic jihadists and their aims, plus other troublemakers like your hateful people, all can, could and would live in peace there. They do so to a large extent working and playing well together, even intermarrying and enjoying an abundant life, certainly in comparison to others around the world including some on the borders of Israel.
            “It is quite obvious that you” are a nasty-tempered, evil, prideful, arrogant and willfully ignorant man who tries to talk down to others, attacking them ad hominem and refusing to engage in adult conversation about vital issues, including avoidance of answering questions with easy answers that go strongly against your biases and prejudices.
            “You should” be at least bright enough to realize that I took an oath of office to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The oath has no end date short of my own in this flesh. For you to question my loyalty makes you one of my enemies, foreign or domestic.
            Apparently you do not have a clue what Obama’s domestic and foreign policies are and the actions he is taking to fulfill them in his Marxist-Islamic regime.
            This is only one more of your oft-repeated Islamic jihadist propaganda lies – “it is time for us to look after our own national interests and to cease allowing the Zionist lobby to determine our foreign policy in the Middle East.”
            FYI, the preservation of Israel is in both our national and religious interests, the latter since we are in fact as Christians, Judeo-Christians, and there is nothing you can do or have to say that makes any sense about that johnny.
            As a matter of fact, you really need to put down your shovel, stop posting online entirely and making a fool of yourself on worldwide-available, public sites. You are an embarrassment to yourself, your family, acquaintances, the schools you attended, your Order, Christians and Americans.

  • Drakken

    What to do with 4 million palis? Simply transfer them to where they belong, Egypt and Jordan and let the rich oil sheikdoms pay their way for once instead of sponging of us westerners.

    • frjohnmorris

      The forceful removal of the Palestinians would be a crime against humanity. They belong where their ancestors have lived for centuries right where they are now. You are a racist.

      • Drakken

        Well tell that to my relatives, my father and my grand parents from East Prussia, as for the palis, when they start wars and lose, to the victors go the spoils. So please take your race card and play it somewhere else, for that dog don’t no more. So spare me the sympathy for a bunch of parasitic savages, I am fresh out.

        • frjohnmorris

          Nothing forces you to respond to my posts. I remember that when I was in Frankfurt am Main that it was an insult to call someone a Prussian, reading your posts makes me understand why.

          • Drakken

            None is so blind as those who cannot see padre. Trying to wake you up out of that academic slumber your in. Your refusal to understand simple facts or concepts because it doesn’t fit your leftist revisionist worldview speaks volumes as to your Marxist thought process.
            I’ll take the insult any day of week, Frankfurt? Bah! Napoléon’s troops had it for too long.

  • Drakken

    The pali’s themselves will be blamed if they are finally pushed out, actions have consequences padre.

    • frjohnmorris

      If the Israelis try to push 4 million Palestinians from their homes and lands, they will start a major war that will bring havoc to the world in many different ways. The price of oil will skyrocket and radical Muslims all over the world will bring down upon all of a reign of terror. There are one billion Muslims. We cannot beat that many people, because we will be alone against the rest of the world.. Europe is not about to go to war to support Zionist aggression against the Palestinian people. It is about time for us to think of our own national interests and realize that we have no obligations to support Zionist expansion into the Occupied Territories or allow AIPAC and it allies to control our domestic politics.