countjulian

Very good stuff, this.

But not nearly enough. Until fundie Christians start posting videos like this on the internet with glee, I'm afraid the two will remain worlds apart (he's hiting Shiite civilians, if you don't know; just the gleeful way he says a'sallama--goodbye-- is frightening, he's not afraid to die at all). You've not seen the true face of evil until you've stared into the gpaing maw of fundamentalist Islam.

Sauron

Pretty identical, actually. It all depends upon whether the external stimulus and pressures are the same.

Wrong. The poster clearly doesn't know a nickel's worth about the history of suicide bombing.

Grab a newspaper. See the xtians fighting back on almost a daily basis.

Only if you're uninformed or intentionally biased.

Actually, christians have been more likely to post photos - as in Abu Ghraib or in the former Yugoslavia.

The only difference is:

(1) the level of desperation, which is a function of external pressure; and
(2) the level of technology within their reach

GakuseiDon

Wow. Did Carrier write that? Holy misrepresentation, Batman!

Origen writes:

it is in agreement with the spirit of Christianity, of much more importance to give our assent to doctrines upon grounds of reason and wisdom than on that of faith merely and that it was only in certain circumstances that the latter course was desired by Christianity, in order not to leave men altogether without help

Origen says he admits that those Christians who are "unable to abandon all other employments" believe without examining the arguments; but that this is the same for pagans and their beliefs as well. Origen is certainly "not proud" of the idea.

gurugeorge

Islamofascists are not, on the whole, born in oppressed slums, they are pseudo-intellectual middle class "thinkers" who recruit thugs to do their dirty work - just like Fascists and Communists before them. The use in Islamofascist propaganda of all the usual sacred cows of Postmodern Leftism is merely there for the recruiting of "useful idiots" on our side. The core of Islamofascism is a fantasy about Muslim dominance of the world. There's been an "external pressure" on Christians, like the liberal laws, etc., in place after a couple centuries "taming" of Christianity. But that "taming" (by moderates in the reiligion, and by rationalists and secularists) is precisely what Islam hasn't had.

What you say is to a certain degree quite correct in the abstract, and I say as much myself; but the fact on the ground at the moment is that Islamofascism is by far the larger actual threat than Christofascism.

What you are presenting here is the "moral equivalence" meme, a tired old thing that would do well to be retired for certain sections of the Postmodern Left, for whom it is by now an intellectual tic, an automatism, that is actually quite empty of content. Yes there is a degree of equivalence between Christians and Muslims, and between Islamofascists and Christofascists, in the abstract, in psychology, etc., but Christofascists are in fact restrained and not a problem, while Islamofascists are a real danger and problem, not just to us but to other, moderate Muslims, who are in fact their main target. (You didn't really think this was just about us did you?)

Sauron

Factually incorrect. But feel free to prove your claim, whenever you like.

Of course, your own argument defeats itself; one wonders why you didn't see it yourself? Here; let me help you: radical islam would have no foot soldiers if there weren't hordes of dissatisfied people in the oppressed slums. Leaders without soldiers wouldn't accomplish anything. So contrary to your depiction of this movement as being an elite engaged in manipulation, it is precisely what I said it was: a reaction to external pressures.

And if you knew anything about the history of communism, you would also recognize that after WW2, the US panicked about losing parts of western Europe to the socialists and communists, via freely held elections. The reason? Oppressed slums, the devastation of WW2, and lack of economic opportunity. The solution - the Marshall Plan - reversed the post WW2 slide of western Europe into socialism and communism.

Radical movements only exist because the ground is fertile for their seeds. Want to drain the swamp? Remove the cause of the fertile ground.

(rest of islamofascist nonsense rant snipped)

Uh, wrong. Show me where christians are being occupied by non-christian governments. You can't, because christian countries have dominant technology and economies.

But if you look in the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Israel, Thailand, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. these are all areas where Muslims are being either ruled, oppressed or attacked by non-muslims in areas they consider to be their own lands.

Here; educate yourself:



Moving along....

No, what I'm presenting is a solid analysis of the problem. You, on the other hand, are merely parroting the far right islamofacist drivel.

Roger Pearse

I remember that passage from Contra Celsum book 1 c. 9, and thought that it was a very sound argument. I read it in Chadwick's translation. How else are normal people ever to get the right way to live?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

countjulian

Not true at all. What about all the suicide terrorism against Pakistani government forces in Waziristan? What about that suicide bomber in the video I posted, whi killed himself to kill Shiite civilians, not US military or civilain personnel? The first Chechen war against Russia was mostly a nationalistic struggle where the Islamists played little role, and there were no suicide bombings. Why? More tellingly, the Second War that still rages on is driven and controlled by Islamists, and there have been many suicide bombings during the course of this campaign. Why the difference?

mountainman

For the record here, I'd like to say two things:

1) my research is aimed at the testing of the hypothesis that
the entirety of christian literature was generated in the fourth
century. This is an assignment in ancient history, not religion.
Mainstream accepts the inference that christians existed in
the pre-Nicaean epoch, because that is how the picture of
the history of christianity is first painted by the Constantinian
ecclesiastical "historian" Eusebius, which I term "the Eusebian
chronology". This history first appeared under Constantine, and
has not to date (AFAIK) been critically tested for integrity,
and for an alternative.

I am happy to be refuted either in whole or in part, and so
set this matter at rest in my mind.


2) After reading Ammianus Marcillenus is became evident to me
that, even if as I claim, a new and strange religion was thrust
upon the Roman empire, an invention of the whole supreme imperial
cloth, with effect from the Council of Nicaea - the supremacy party -
all generations of "the tribe of man" subsequent to this point may
have then been born into a christian religion of their parents tradition,
and have firnmly believed in what they were told. Christians after
Nicaea, got to define themselves according to their own inherent
words and actions, the same as any other person who associates
their belief system with "this" or "that" from antiquity.

Constantine stood at arm's length, and welcomed signatories
to his supreme imperial creed which denounced the words
of Arius .... "there was time when he was not", etc.

According to The Emperor Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk)
Hans A. Pohlsander, 1996, p.76

"He had provided with forethought for his own burial:
his sarcophagus was placed under the central dome
of the Church of the Hoy Apostles, surrounded by the
cenotaphs or memorial steles of the Twelve Apostles,
making him symbolically the thirteenth apostle.
Noone raised an objection at the time to this
extraordinary arrangment."

Also interesting is the author's account of
"the Column of Constantine" now known as
"the Burnt Column", which held central place
in the forum built by Constantine in "his New Rome"
in front of the old gate of the Severan walls.
According to the author (above):

"The column was crowned by a status of Helios,
its features suitably adapted so as to represent
Constantine.
...[...]...
It is difficult to interpret the statue. Did Constantine
think of himself as an epiphany of Helios, or did he
want his subjects to think of him thus? And did he
associated, in his mind, Helios with Christ? The mosaic
of Christ-Helios in the mausoleum of the Julii, in the
vatican necropolis, deep under the floor of St. Peters
basilica, suggest that such an association did indeed
occur. The logical but blasphemous conclusion, of
such an assumption then would be that Constantine
thought of himself as an epiphany of Christ. The altar
at the foot of the statue would lend support to such
a conclusion. ..... [...] ... Interestingly enough,
Eusebius is silent about the columns, the statue
and the altar.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown
Authors of Antiquity

countjulian

Speaking of old Marcellinus, any chance you'll have the whole book up soon, Mountain?

Sauron

Quite true, actually. With one modification, and where I think that Robert Pape is wrong - it isn't necessay for the invading force to be a democracy. Thailand is not a democracy; Israel is only a democracy if you happen to be Jewish; and certainly Russia lost all claims to democracy under Putin. So the invading / occupying force merely needs to be invading or occupying.

The tribal regions in Waziristan have never fully supported the central govt. They have resisted incorporation into Pakistan; remember, of course, that the existence of Pakistan is a post-colonial event drawn along questionable boundaries. It lumped together groups of people who would probably not have chosen to create a country together. The situation there is similar to the situation in Chechnya: a military presence seen as a foreign invader, even though nominally within the same recognized boundaries.

Don't confuse means with ends.

His actual goal was to create internal dissent among religious groups, raise the violence level, and make the US position less tenable. It would also de-legitimize what is seen as the puppet govt in Iraq. Both the US and the puppet govt are seen as "foreign invaders".

Irrelevant to the question. People can resist an occupying force for different reasons at different times during a country's history. It doesn't change or refute the central thesis of Pape's work.

Moreover, resistance movements are restricted to using whatever tools they currently have at their disposal. Need a tank brigade? Too bad; you don't have one. Make do with whatever you have instead. Suicide bombing is a mark of military desperation. After the devastation of the 1st Chechen War, it's unlikely that the Chechens have the same amount of military tools and ordnance available to them.

See the above.