Je pense que ces religions se battent car ceux qui les ont installees, cherchaient la bataille, et l’ont trouvee
Mon interpretation c’est que le cote’ belliqueux des trois religions etait primordial pour leur domination… Voir l’histoire des Cathares. Un million de morts, parcequ’ils pensaient que les maitres du Catholicisme n’etait pas… parfaits…
P

So did Rome fall? Militarily, no: the army on the Rhine, when the Vandals, Alans and company broke through, by surprise, on a particular cold Xmass night in 406 CE was constituted of Franks (often simply described as “Romans” in history books; in truth the legions had been withdrawn). The Frankish army WAS the Roman army.

And did Rome fall linguistically? No. By 600 CE the Frankish leaders spoke Latin. Actually Latin buried both Old Frankish and Celtic.

OK, maybe I should make this into an essay…
PA

Right now, it’s pretty obvious that, both in the EU and the USA, the financial plutocracy, and other plutocracies are pulling the strings, something that did not even happen in 1929. And that is NOT the definition of democracy. The official morality has been bent. In 2011, speculators even deliberately drove up some prices, say on food, worldwide. More bending, plus casus belli.

As in the century after the First Punic War, the Republic has to be renewed, thoroughly. But few felt vested in that project. So the plutocratic phenomenon kept growing, and led to civil wars, tyrannies, and, finally, theocracy. Islamist countries are, of course, stuck in theocracy, and our Republican morals, require us, at the very least, to denigrate and make fun of them. And, if they offer battle, to accept it, ASAP.
PA

All what you say is very true.

The funny thing is that the French revolution, inside France, the “Terror”, killed not that many people (I am against it, the terror, BTW). It killed less than the Commune did. (Or, more exactly, the crushing of the Commune.) It assuredly killed less than 10% of what the American Civil War killed.

The heavy loss of lives, in the millions, was caused by the concerted attack of all plutocrats of Europe, against the French Republic. The grandees of Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria, and others, all attacked with enormous armies, and the war lasted 23 years… No less.

A lot of the problem between USA and France has to with what you say: on one side the intellectuals, on the others those who believe in Allah. Or trust in Allah, as they put it. and beyond that, the passion of the intellect. That way the Islamists are making intellectuals a gift, a war that can be fought, and has to be won!

The French presidency reacted as extremely well in the latest Middle East crisis, whereas the USA leadership, White House side, reacted unbelievably naively, and so badly, one could see it itching to betray the fundamental values of the West..

The Obama administration has been lamentable about the assassination of the ambassador. It happened on 9/11. Obama went to make the reflective clown in Manhattan, apparently refelcting not deeply enough to realize the ambassador was assassinated on 9/11.

And that the trailer video had been out for 6 months.

70 guys, heavily armed, appeared at the Consulate, carrying weapons just bigger than Obama himself, and carry a military operation. Then idiots in the government (Rice, her name, like the other one, and the spokesguy) insist again and again that it was just a spontaneous reaction to the outrageous trailer.

The problem with that trailer is that it is official Islam. If that’s dnigrating Islam, the Qur’an is denigrating Islam… But that is precisely the point Aisha made, 1,350 years ago…. But the Obamists thought about censoring the trailer.

In other words, the Obamists are making theology, and find on the side of the religion of those who have oil (Saudis). Hmmmm… Some will wonder why…. Not.

Now the latest news would be that the White House would have criticized France for having a free press… Serious.

As you say, in France that will not go down too well. Some French commentators were all amused, shaking their heads about USA effrontery, saying the Americans are really nuts.

The Greek blasphemein means “to speak evil of.” Hence “blame”, etc. So what the Islamists and their fellow travellers in the White House want, is for us to not blame any of the great Lords, not to speak evil of bankers, and the religious maniacs who give them oil (and maybe money?)

My latest essay, Duchesse of Hypocrisy, broaches this a bit more.
PA

French journalist or intellectual interviewed by Amanpour talks about defending right to blaspheme as core democratic principle.

‘Listened to a French (journalist known only by his initials – is this common in France?) tonight interviewed on CNN by Christiane Amanpour explain that he thinks the small minority of Salafists in Libya are trying, by attacking the U.S. Embassy, to return the country to the status quo. He said he does not think the Libyan people will fall for this. More importantly he also said that although he was not amused by the cartoons about the prophet Mohammed, there was also a rabbi in the cartoon(s) and he believes that the right to blaspheme iis at the very core of democracy and that Islamist societies must learn this if they are to have any real hope of developing a free society.

The conviction with which he expressed his views made clear that the French are committed to engaging in a more serious discussion of what is necessary to defend at the core of democratic values than what their counterparts in the U.S. are generally capable of because they are both intellectually engaged and emotionally committed to the right outcome(s).

One of the former is not sufficient though this is often passed off as sufficient in the U.S.

In the U.S. one often has the sense that there is apathy about the outcomes because politicians who are in serious contention for national office do not want to risk putting their imprimatur on possible solutions that are far from guaranteed to succeed. Romney’s comments about the Middle East (i.e.Israel and Palestine) reflect this reluctance to risk failure in order to guarantee the status quo, instead.

The French, when they are at their best often excel at defining core principles of freedom and democracy because they believe passionately in them.

This is lost on Americans who find the French version of democracy threatening because of what took place during the French revolution and because of labor union activism, etc. This discussion often fails to be taken up with the same level of commitment by the media in the U.S. where politicians are often allowed to escape scrutiny of whether they are committed to achieving a certain outcome.
Jeff

Now in 1939 the USA outright betrayed France and Britain (let alone everybody else on Hitler’s target list, including the Jews). Britain had just ten divisions. France, with 110 divisions, but half the population of Germany, was supposed to do all the hard work.
In 1940 the USA was still not ready, to fight a major war, and still hostile to France, while recognizing it was necessary to sell 4,000 planes to France (don’t ask about scizoid USA governmental psyche!)

To make a long story short, it was the division of the three democracies that was the main problem in 1939-1940. Even after he got a Franco-British ultimatum on September 1, 1939, hitler did not believe that France and Britain would go to war. If, at that point, the USA had joined France and Britain, be it only verbally, German generals would have knocked Hitler out. But instead the USA sent supplies to the Nazis while they were fighting the French and Poles!

So many German generals thought that the USA wanted them to knock France out… (Smarter ones realized a trap was being set.)

Right now, greatly thanks to Obama, we have a different scene. A very different scene from 2003, when France was back into enemy-of-Washington role.

As I had advocated, the USA fell in line and supported the French assault against Kadafi, which the British were helping. After three decades of war against Kadafi, on and off, it was high time to finish him off. So the three democracies were, and are, united. And even all the ex-neutrals of 1939, who played a disastrous role in 1939, are making token efforts (except for still treachorous Sweden) to show NATO R US.

In case of massive military efforts, the West (USA, UK, FR) can win over everybody, and everybody knows this. However, although the quality of Western weapons is great, not so the quantity, and the USA effort towards stealth planes has been a serious mistake, leaving the USA with a highly deficient air force. The others know all of this. China, in particular, is a dangerous mess, with an uppity military. Instead of talking of attacking Iran, one should talk about attacking Pakistan, and so forth.

So WWIII? Yes, and it could happen by accident. From the Nazis’ point of view, war in 1939 was an accident caused by France. The Nazis wanted war in 1945, after “plan Z”. I could explain the miscalculation(s) fascists could make now.

The accident did not happen earlier, because of the West’s crushing military superiority. But to re-establish that superiority now would require a crash program.

I am probably sounding like Romney now; but actually a way to get a bigger bang for the buck would be more cooperation between the democracies on weapons’ procurement. That’s particularly clear with planes and drones, as I have detailed in other essays; BTW a study on ABM came out saying exactly what I thought.

Overall, as the greenhouse accelerates, so will the rush for resources, etc. Meanwhile, the West rots by the head, and the plutocrats are ready to call onto Satan, Mars, Hades to help them out, with a big distraction, and a rise to fascism, so, they, too, could have an interest for war.

A baby case is Syria, and the West ought to be very careful there. The French, certainly, playing an obscure game, of apprentice sorcerers, and the USA, probably, have been militarily helping the rebellion, but the rebellion is becoming increasingly Jihadist… And those Jihadists are no friends of the French republic… .
PA

The explicit allowance by Allah to have as many wives as he pleased was too self serving not to have been around in Muhammad’s lifetime. Muhammad’s sex life was controversial, in his lifetime, as he married the wife of a high level associate (who took it very badly, for some reason), slept (or married) a Jewish prisonner, with too much enthusiasm, and then was extraordinarily lenient with Aischa’s strange stays with other men….etc…

I hope I did not misunderstand, and that “Mo”, or is that “Mooo”, is not a cow you are friendly with? As Uthman’s Qur’an says many swines and apes are actually Jews, fully conscious of their Judaism, and their errors, maybe cows can read the Qur’an too? Actually the chapter two of the Qur’an is entitled “The Cow“…
PA

The Qur’an should be read.