***SATURDAY UPDATE***
Col. Steven Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus, just emailed me the following in response to my request to confirm an earlier report that the U.S. Army’s investigation into the claims made by PV-2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp made in The New Republic had been completed.
He states:
To your question: Were there any truth to what was being said by Thomas?
Answer: An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas’ platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims.
As to what will happen to him?
Answer: As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under the various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not releasable to the public by the military on what does or does not happen.
Note that the investigation didn’t just stop by stating that the claims were uncorroborated; Col. Boylan states categorically that Beauchamp’s allegations were false. Not a lot of wiggle room there.
********
Matt Sanchez (blogging from Iraq) and Bob at Confederate Yankee are both independently reporting that the Army’s investigation into the “Scott Thomas”/”Shock Troops” allegations at The New Republic are false. I have also emailed a contact I have at CENTCOM in Iraq for independent verification of the conclusion of the Army’s investigation.
From Sanchez on the ground at Forward Operating Base Falcon (who is actually in Iraq… and is actually with real Army people who don’t make up stories and “verify” each other’s lies)…..
After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegations made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the “Baghdad Diarist“, have been
“refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false”
The official investigation the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office qualified as “thorough and professional” concluded late August 1st. Officials would not speculate on the possibility of further action against Private Beauchamp, nor would they confirm his current whereabouts or status.
Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons, the acting public affairs official of the 4th IBCT, 1st ID, in the absence of Major Kirk Luedeke, remarked that despite the high level of attention this case received in the American media, soldiers at the 4th IBCT, 1st Inf. Div, a “surge” Brigade, have not been distracted from their missions.
Update: All allegations were demonstrated to be false according to officials at Army Public Affairs.
On the specific allegation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp made regarding the facially-disfigured woman that he found so funny… Bob at Confederate Yankee has found out from Major Renee Russo, Third Army Public Affairs Office in Kuwait, that the story of the woman is “an urban legend.”
Will The New Republic finally admit its major-league error? Will there be a Dan Rather-like purging at TNR? Will TNR apologize to the members of the US military for these fictionalized atrocities being elevated to relevant news?
Not surprisingly, Andrew Sullivan continues to be an apologist for his old magazine and so far hasn’t reported that the Army investigation shows Beauchamp to be a fiction writer.
Don’t hold your breath, folks. No wonder more Americans trust the US military much more than the US news media.
[Related Story: New Republic Stands By The Manchurian Columnist – GayPatriot]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Nope. There’ll be a job waiting for him at TNR as soon as he’s shipped out. It doesn’t matter if it was a patent lie. What matters is liberal objective of what he wrote.
Liberals reward crooks and liars. Look for a push for him to run for congress.
Beauchamp and TNR’s apologists are now pursuing Teh Gay-Bashing Route. I bet Andrianna Sullington and all of TNR’s defenders in this forum are real fookin’ proud now.
The Beauchamp affair aside, I wouldn’t quote Matt Sanchez too extensively. This is a guy who, in recent comments that he has now deleted in true Amanda Marcotte style, wrote the following:
We are shallow, we are jihadists, and we are a threat to our country, culture, and civilization. That’s what he says. Do you really want to be quoting him?
I got in an online fight with someone for making a statement that the term “feminazi” was a reasonable way to describe, well, feminazis. I didn’t see any reason at all to expect that to be interpreted as referring to all feminists.
Just like radical Islamist refers to, well, radical Islamists.
Why does “militant gay movement” not refer to those who are militant? Not that I follow and read a whole lot about Sanchez but it seems quite reasonable to me that over time he found the world of pornography as bad as he claims to have found it.
In any case I’ve read enough today about how Sanchez can’t even be allowed to quote an official Army announcement to have much sympathy with it. Does it matter?
[This commenter has been permanently banned for repeated violation of community terms of conduct. He is one of few (less than a handful) in our Banned Hall of Fame. It is sad that he still wants to troll here.]
As I’ve pointed out on my blog, it is unreasonable to call gays and lesbians – whether they are liberal or conservative, militant or otherwise – jihadists, because I doubt that Mr. Sanchez can tell me when the last time was that any gay or lesbian blew himself up or flew a plane into a building in pursuit of his ideological or political goals.
By adopting this liberal use of the term jihadist, Sanchez is not only insulting gays and lesbians, but he is also undermining our ideological position in the war on terror – which means that he is undermining our troops and the war that he seems to so enthusiastically support.
Moreover, I would point out that this is just one segment in a long line of hostility toward gays and lesbians that Matt Sanchez has demonstrated on his blog. I’m not usually one to cry anti-gay bigotry, but I think we’ve got a case of it here.
Nice bait & switch attempt, Nate.
Let’s get back to the FACT that TNR hired a known anti-war activist whose wife worked for them and who made up fictional stories about his time in the battlefield which really happened in Kuwait.
I actually wasn’t attempting any bait and switch. That would be silly, wouldn’t it, given that I support remaining in Iraq until it has a stable government that won’t serve as an Iranian client state? I’m by no means an anti-war activist, and I’m not trying to diminish the seriousness of what TNR has done.
But Matt Sanchez is bad news. He’s bad news for gays and lesbians and, eventually, he’s going to be bad news for the conservative movement and the Republican Party. But if you want to stay on his sinking ship, that’s up to you.
Nate, I would simply put it this way; what else should we call people who do this sort of thing?
And believe me, I’m not the only person — which you see in this blog roundup — who thinks what is passing for acceptable behavior among gay people stinks.
“Jihad” can be translated as “spiritual warfare”, and to many Muslims, it refers to one’s own personal theological conflicts that they wage in trying to follow the tenets of their religion. Most Muslim scholars will be happy to tell you that its appropriation as an excuse for physical warfare, i.e. terrorist actions like the one you describe, is at best a misunderstanding and at worst a complete and utter perversion of their faith.
In the same fashion as Osama bin Laden and his ilk pervert Islam to support their sociopathic and dangerous behavior, gays are doing it with homosexuality — and it does represent a threat. Do you realize how many gay people are using their homosexuality as an excuse for supporting antiwar activism of the type from which you wish to distance yourself?
That is to what Matt Sanchez is referring.
Nate, Bruce asked you to leave it and get back to his point.
NDT, so sorry you wrote that, because now I feel compelled to defend Nate’s point a little. Let’s let “jihadist” mean real jihadists – people who actually fly planes into buildings.
Not that I am ready to indict Sanchez for mis-using the term once, of course. Everyone occasionally uses the wrong word, or waxes a bit too florid.
I should have known better, but I just couldn’t resist going to TNR’s website to read the Editors’ indignant “Statement On Scott Thomas Beauchamp.” Although TNR identifies Beauchamp’s geographic error as a “significant detail” and an “important discrepancy,” their curt dismissal of the purported error is suggestive of an editorial staff that is: (a) really annoyed that anyone would dare question TNR’s impeccable reputation, or (b) desperately hoping that their readers will fall in line and ignore the error’s catastrophic effect on Beauchamp’s credibility, or both.
Well, it looks to me like it’s both. Beauchamp’s admission that he ridiculed a disfigured woman in Kuwait instead of Iraq utterly negates the (stated) rationale for publishing the stories in the first place (and the Editors realize this). Natch, TNR’s minions have leaped from the starting gate, eager not only to diminish the significance of the discrepancy, but to offer thanks and congratulations to TNR for clearing up this vicious, unprovoked attack on an honorable soldier who was brave enough to “tell the truth” and stand up to the evil Bush administration. Yuck.
Yes, I should have known better than to read the comments as well, but below I have copied an excerpt of one of my personal favorites, authored by a good little robot named “montraville”:
“Here’s the test. If these things were ABSOLUTELY TRUE, would they cause the President or the military to change their substantive policies? Not one whit. These allegations are not the same as the abuse of prisoners or other misfeasance, which ALSO has not induced the powers in charge to substantially alter their policies.
TNR knows this, and when a paper does have truly world-shaking news, they’ll always invest more effort in corroboration. I for one think the corroboration level for this piece was probably appropriate for the piece’s actual gravitas, at least with regards to the issues discussed here.”
So, in montraville’s view, the level of corroboration to be applied depends upon the gravity of the reported allegations. If the soldiers’ conduct involves the “torture and abuse” of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, a GREATER standard of proof will be required to show that members of the military are sadistic, slack-jawed, homicidal neanderthals. Conversely, if the conduct involves soldiers killing domestic pets for sport, desecrating the remains of innocent Iraqi children or viciously ridiculing a fellow soldier’s disfiguring wounds, a LESSER standard of proof will be required to show that members of the military are sadistic, slack-jawed, homicidal neanderthals.
Wow. I guess the liberals really DO support the sadistic, slack-jawed…er…troops.
And again sorry, but now one of my hot buttons comes out: Jihad as physical warfare, killing, subjugation, etc. of non-Muslims *is not a perversion* of Islam. It is a central and traditional form of Islam. That’s the problem.
Much more than the other religions, Islam was founded and spread by the sword. The Quran is explicit, that physical warfare on non-dhimmi (i.e., proud or resistant) non-Muslims is a top duty for military-age males.
Show me a Muslim who says otherwise, i.e. that even military-age males should take jihad as inner struggle, and I will show you one of 2 things. Either (1) a Muslim who is consciously non-traditional and universalist, or (2) a Muslim who simply does not want to admit to the contents of their own holy book.
And before the GP anti-Christians (you know who you are) try to suggest that Christianity or the Bible are similar: They aren’t. The Hebrew Testament only advised Jews to be warlike when taking and defending Canaan (or modern-day Israel). The Christian Testament advised pacifism and non-resistance to the pagan Roman Caesar.
Aye. Are you searching in vain for a cogent thought? It is pretty safe to say that there are gays who are jihadist in nature. You can’t tell me that ACT UP isn’t. You can call them “freedom fighters” all you want, but no matter how much you polish a turd, it’s still a turd.
You’re right. We should firmly clamp our lips on the c*cks of those who oppose gay marriage, gave us gay rights like DOMA, DADT and the Texas anti-sodomy law. What do we care as long as they blow smoke up our asses for votes.
The point is that Beauchamp (or whoever the hell he is) is full of sh*t, just like every other liberal.
I probably shouldn’t have even brought this up here, I just hated to see Matt Sanchez being quoted on this blog after his history of anti-gay statements on his blog.
TGC, if you don’t see the difference between ACT UP and al-Qaeda then I’m afraid there’s no help for you. I think ACT UP’s tactics are disgusting, but ACT UP is not a terrorist organization and it is not jihadist, no matter how you try to spin it.
As for your latter point, I’m afraid that doesn’t work well for me, as I prefer the top bunk. That business is Monica Lewinsky’s job. Opposing Matt Sanchez’s anti-gay rhetoric doesn’t make me a leftist anymore than being able to spell makes you intelligent, and what I’m concerned about is people like yourself getting down on their knees to worship the idol who is Matt Sanchez, Pierre LaBranche, Rod Majors, or whatever his stage name is this week.
Please return to your regularly scheduled tempest in a teapot.
Leaving aside all the comments on Matt Sanchez, (Though attacking the messenger does not invalidate the message) is anyone else repulsed that the army’s apparently not going to do anything to this scott beauchamps guy? I mean, via, we prosecuted Tokyo Rose didn’t we? Isn’t this much worse? We procecuted the scum at abu graib, isn’t this worse?
More importantly, who thinks Bruce is a mysogynist?
Eye on the ball, guys, Sanchez is on the ground in Iraq helping to bring the details of this scandal to everyone back home–at the risk of inevitable attacks on his past from the hypocritical left every time he posts. No one is “getting down on their knees to worship” Sanchez. But who better to quote on this matter than a soldier in Iraq that’s obviously committed to exposing Beauchamp’s (and TNR’s) lies?
Thank God for blogs and the new media or these types of military bashing lies would go on constantly. And the war effort would be seriously undermined. I think back in the Vietnam days it was just crap like this that caused the public to lose faith and eventually give up. Things are so different now. By now in the 60’s and 70’s with all the misinformation, there were millions out in the streets and the anti war effort grew like a monster leading to our eventual defeat. This ain’t the 60’s and because of the new media…lies can be exposed. When there is an anti military protest it consists of a few hundred long haired 60 and 70 year olds trying to recapture their glory days.
August 4, 2007 @ 3:16 am: “The Hebrew Testament only advised Jews to be warlike when taking and defending Canaan (or modern-day Israel).”
Not warlike, genocidal. Whenever the Hebrew people decides to attack one of the neighboring nations (and it happens a lot), the command of “God” is clear: no prisoner. “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Samuel 15).
“The Christian Testament advised pacifism and non-resistance to the pagan Roman Caesar”.
As Thomas Paine put it, “Some Christians pretend that Christianity was not established by the sword; but of what period of time do they speak? It was impossible that twelve men could begin with the sword; they had not the power; but no sooner were the professors of Christianity sufficiently powerful to employ the sword, than they did so, and the stake and fagot, too.” And they were biblically justified in doing so since Jesus’s command was as clear as Jehovah’s: “Bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).
Of course, this clarification is not meant to excuse in any way Islam’s own genocidal tendencies.
“I just passed through my angry adolescence a little quicker than you, Kronos.” -Methos
I try to be optimistic, but for Christians and Jews, our ‘angry adolescnce’ was by the sword and the torch, and some things blamed on it (the Crusades) were in self defence.
Islam’s adolesence is coming with NBC back up, and if doesn’t scare people I don’t know what will.
And now, with “Thomas” at #15, the hatefully insane have joined the thread.
For the record: Israel (the modern state) does not want to wipe out its neighbors and does not attempt to. Rather, they want to, and attempt to, wipe it out.
See the history of the last 60 years. Even the 1967 war was in response to clear and present dangers to Israel’s existence, and was about territory and military position (not wiping anyone).
Wrong answer. That is roughly how Islam began. Not much more than twelve men – led by Mohammed, with the sword. So it can be done. Whereas Christianity existed nearly 300 years before concerning itself with anything warlike or governmental, and Jesus and nearly all its original leaders gave up their lives to avoid taking up the sword (among other purposes).
I respect Thomas Paine who got a lot of things right, but his specific claim as you’ve quoted it, was not one of them.
A classic Christian-hater’s misquote. Jesus was telling a story; He was speaking in the voice and context of one of the characters in the story. Christian-haters classically refuse to learn or respect that.
Further lack of response from me on these side topics should be construed as me finding them stupid.
Sorry, meant “Thomas” at #19. (The numbers keep changing.)
I will refute this one last bit as well:
Islam’s tendencies are not genocidal, Thomas. Unless you’re operating off some different dictionary than I am. Islam does not care what race or ethnicity you are. It simply wants us all to be Muslim, and will kill us if we do not at least accept “dhimmi” (i.e., third-class) status as non-Muslims. Oh, and if we have gay sex. Or if we think women should be equal.
Sean A –
LOL…. have I committed an alleged act of “mysogyny” AGAIN??!! I can’t keep track! 🙂
It seems lately that the labels “mysogynist”, “racist”, and “homophobe” have morphed into meaning: I disagree with your political views and will now attack you personally because I cannot refute your arguments with facts.
ILoveCapitalism — August 4, 2007 @ 1:23 pm: “For the record: Israel (the modern state) does not want to wipe out its neighbors and does not attempt to. See the history of the last 60 years.”
What I discussed in my previous post is the content of the Hebrew Testament and I seriously doubt it records the history of the last 60 years…
“A classic Christian-hater’s misquote. Jesus was telling a story; He was speaking in the voice and context of one of the characters in the story. Christian-haters classically refuse to learn or respect that.”
Really? Let’s take a look at Matthew Henry’s opinion on the matter in his classic Commentary on the Whole Bible: “Those that will not have Christ to reign over them shall be reputed and dealt with as his enemies. We are ready to think that none are Christ’s enemies but persecutors of Christianity, or scoffers at least; but you see that those will be accounted so that dislike the terms of salvation, will not submit to Christ’s yoke, but will be their own masters. Note, Whoever will not be ruled by the grace of Christ will inevitably be ruined by the wrath of Christ.” Well, I suppose that interpretation makes poor Matthew Henry a “Christian-hater”…
Back to the topic, fellas 🙂
OT for a moment….
1 – By posting the on-the-ground information from Matt Sanchez, I am making no judgment on his stance on gay issues. That is probably fodder for a post of its own.
2 – Why is Sanchez any less of a bad messenger of factual information (since he is on the ground and has quotes from real-life, actual Army officials) than the NY Times who hired plagarists, TNR who hired an anti-war lib to be embedded and invent stories, and CBS News which invented documents to try to throw an election?
#25 Bruce, you’re absolutely right and you’re not alone. The LGF Dictionary lists the definition of “racist” as:
A statement of surrender during an argument. When two people or disputants are engaged in an acrimonious debate, the side that first says “Racist!” has conceded defeat. Synonymous with saying “Resign” during a chess game, or “Uncle” during a schoolyard fight. Originally, the term was meant to indicate that one side was accusing the other of being racist, but once it was noticed that people only resorted to this tactic when all other arguments had been exhausted, it acquired its new meaning of “indicating one’s own concession of defeat.”
It’s been my personal observation that the Liberals have also hijacked the plain meaning of the expression “open-minded.” To a Liberal, “open-minded” means “agrees with me unequivocally on all things political and cultural.” By way of example, on at least a handful of occasions when a Liberal has discovered that I don’t share their views of the world (gasp!), they end all discussion of the issue by telling me I’m not “open-minded” and running in the opposite direction. Of course, the “issue” is typically a political one that THEY BROUGHT UP with pronouncements containing the words “war for oil,” “9/11 was an inside job” or “impeachment.” Accordingly, if you respond to these pronouncements with anything less than ecstatic agreement and solidarity (i.e. by attempting to engage in reasoned discourse like rational adults), you don’t have an “open mind.” See also, “close-minded.”
Bruce, here’s one on-topic 😉 That Matt Sanchez has gone to Iraq and Afghanistan, unlike most of his and/or our military’s critics – and that Matt has done so to support our troops, not slander them – is wonderful. Kudos, Matt!
I don’t know if you’ve already quoted where Sanchez says this about Beauchamp:
Classy.
P.S. Here is the permalink: http://www.matt-sanchez.com/2007/08/my-word–from-f.html
#17 Livewire – See Confederate Yankee’s post, that Bruce linked – Col. Boylan, the one who confirmed that Beauchamp’s claims were false, had this to say about Beauchamp’s punishment:
I take no position on it; I’m only repeating it.
See also bipartisan
#17
Yes, and so is leaking and publishing national security secrets, and so is stealing national security documents, stuffing them in your underwear and destroying them so the people can never know the truth.
Apparently prosecuting treason is now politically incorrect.
#34 – Will, I agree with you. However, just for the record: the USA did indeed prosecute Tokyo Rose (an ethnic Filipina, FYI) and Axis Sally (a US-born woman of German extraction) for treason after World War II. President Ford issued a full pardon to Tokyo Rose prior to his stepping down in 1981.
Also – I was waiting for some libtard to start mean-mouthing Cpl Sanchez and his forays into porn. Of course, to the GayLeftLibBorg, it is not hypocritical to denounce a patriot who happens to be gay while at the same time embracing the likes of Gerry Studds, Barney Frank and others with questionable ethics (paging Bill Clinton…).
Regards,
Peter H.
PS – I am in Milwaukee this week for a conference. No, I haven’t seen the Schotz Brewery yet, but I did strut down W. Wisconsin Avenue in my best “Laverne and Shirley” imitation. (“Schlemiel, Schlamazo, Hasenpfeffer Incorporated…”)
I wish I had thought of that song when Hillary (and by implication, her candidate for “Co-President”, Bill) was soliciting suggestions from the public on YouTube for a campaign song.
“Give us any chance, we’ll take it. Give us any rule, we’ll break it…”
Patrick (Gryph) is banned from this website?
[GP Ed. Note – You missed his repeated violation of our community terms of conduct and my repeated warnings to him. Not surprising you missed it since you have done the same thing from time to time. Luckily for you… you are still here. This isn’t DailyKos here… we try to maintain respect and dignity in our comments, arturo.]
#35
I thought it was Sclamazel. Can we get a ruling from GPW?
I remember watching Garry Marshall on The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn. Craig asked him “Which is worse, schlameel or schlamazel?”. Garry explained what each meant (I forget now) and said schlamazel was worse.
Has anyone wondered whether this liar isn’t another convert to Islam. ‘Taqiyya’, lieing for advantage, is an accepted tactic.
That touches just another one of my sore notes in the PR realm; no significant examples of Islamic apostacy or converting – out.
Let’s let “jihadist” mean real jihadists – people who actually fly planes into buildings.
Only if you allow others to call Eric Rudolph a “Christian soldier”.
Show me a Muslim who says otherwise, i.e. that even military-age males should take jihad as inner struggle, and I will show you one of 2 things. Either (1) a Muslim who is consciously non-traditional and universalist, or (2) a Muslim who simply does not want to admit to the contents of their own holy book.
Fine and dandy. Which do you want to call me, since I take the Bible’s calls to its equivalent forms and warfare as spiritual, versus those like Eric Rudolph who interpret them literally as physical?
What needs to be kept in mind is that modern-day Islam is roughly at the point that Christianity in general was in the Crusades, in which the Eric Rudolph thinking dominated. What we would call modern Christianity, with its emphasis on individual spiritual development and choice, was hundreds of years and a Reformation away.
Your reaction is understandable; gay leftist and Democrat hostility towards Christianity is obvious, and a common tactic of theirs is to compare Christianity to Islam without inserting that historical perspective and obvious development over time.
But flipping over to the other side and ignoring the fact that there are Muslims who are not Eric Rudolph equivalents, or even criticizing them in order to condemn Islam as a whole, is just as bad. These are the people who we need to cultivate, inasmuch as they are the ones who will ultimately have to drag Islam kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages — and because they are among Osama bin Laden and his ilk’s top targets.
NDT – This is a side topic which we should discuss in another venue. My answer here, though long, will be the briefest I am capable of. I am giving you one, rather than none, out of respect for you, i.e., because I *don’t* find you or your comments stupid.
I have not done so. Kindly represent my arguments fairly. I pointedly identified 2 kinds of Muslim who aren’t Eric Rudolph equivalents.
Western-hating liberals have taught us to think so. The Crusades were somewhat more of a defensive conflict – a “let’s take the war to the enemy” type of conflict, like, you know, Afghanistan and Iraq? – than is commonly understood today. Muslims attacked, raped and pillaged all over Europe for centuries preceeding the Crusades. Interestingly, during the 100+ years that Crusader states existed in the Middle East, Muslim attacks on Europe fell off somewhat. (Think there’s a connection?) They resumed with a vengeance – think of the Turks – after Europe unwisely abandoned the Crusader states.
Oh, where to begin? How to keep it brief?
Nowhere does the Christian Testament lay out “crusading” as one of the top five duties, and really *the* top duty, of a Christian. By contrast, the Quran lays out “jihad” as one of the top five duties – and really *the* top duty – of an observant Muslim. And promises them 72 virgins if they manage to die in battle. And on, and on, and on.
There are MANY other points I could make in this connection. I would love to get into the specific texts, from both books. The Quranic quotes (suras) must be read, to be believed. But out of respect for Bruce, I will stop. Just consider reading this book for some quick, introductory info. If you haven’t done so, also consider reading the Quran proper; click here for a good and respected translation.
(Also: Jesus, and Christianity’s entire first generation of leaders, and much of its first ten generations of leaders, gave up their lives to avoid taking up the sword, among other purposes. Mohammed did the opposite. Totally different “founding examples”. OK, I’ll stop!)
I pointedly identified 2 kinds of Muslim who aren’t Eric Rudolph equivalents.
In a derogatory fashion, ILC.
Furthermore, I would strongly suggest one read some of the sermons of Urban II relative to what one would receive in exchange for killing Muslims in battle and retaking Jerusalem before one starts pointing fingers about Muslims promising heavenly rewards for militant behavior on earth.
Relative to Robert Spencer’s work, the problem I have with him is identical to the problem I have with people like Thomas who take a quote from the Bible and then attempt to extrapolate it to all Christians, all the time — and then who, when Christians vehemently deny that, claim that it’s because they’re “covering up” what they truly believe.
Comparing modern Islam to Crusades-era Christianity is perfectly apt, and hardly indicts Christianity; indeed, the fact that the majority of Christians today would find the means and rhetoric of the Crusades era to be deplorable and wholly intolerant is a statement on how far Christianity has progressed.
Let me get this straight. You classify “a Muslim who is consciously non-traditional and universalist”, as a derogatory description?
I don’t. In fact, one of the people I love most in this world, considers herself such a Muslim and I had her in mind when I typed that one. “Derogatory” is a concept you’ve brought in.
Listen to yourself, NDT. One of the sermons of Urban II. Not one of the sermons of Jesus. Not one of the sermons of Mark, Luke, John, ‘Peter, Paul or Mary’, James the brother of the Lord, Origen, Athanasius, any of the Clements, Augustine… I could go on.
Further: as it happened, the sermons of Urban II and many others who preached the Crusades, carefully included background information about the centuries of Muslim attacks, raping and pillaging of Europe. It is simply not fair to attempt to understand (or comment on) the Crusades, apart from that background.
You also haven’t addressed the point of Mohammed’s example that is built into Islam, as contrasted to Jesus’ example built into Christianity. Nor the issue of Quranic texts. But the latter is my fault, because I haven’t typed them in (and am not going to, here). Trust me: Learn about what it says. Then look at the total picture of what it tells Muslim believers, vs. the alleged harsh / warlike texts of the Christian Testament.
Since this conversation has veered off topic, I’m closing the thread.