IN TURKEY, YOU NEEDN'T GO THAT FAR BACK:

http://chicago.agrino.org/turkish_pogrom_against_the_greeks.htm

Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 29, 2008 11:24 AM

I think that's something that belong to the past.
Don't be like the islamo-fascists, don't live in the past. Centuries ago, the island of what is now UK was a Celtic territory before the Germanic invasion. Amerindians lived peacefully in the great plains of the US. Black Africans led a primitive but happy existance in africa. etc...etc... We can't do nothing now to modify the consequence of past events. So just forget the past (after you learned from it), and work for the future. Costantinople will no longer be a christian metropole, live with it.
To be honest with you Spencer, sometimes I feel irritated by the National-Catholicism reflected by some of your posts. Try to be neutral, and take in account that not everybody who reads you is catholic, including me (I am Jewsih). And if you want my opinion, I have no sympathy for the catholic church. So stop brainwashing the bloody history of the Papists. (I read all your books).

Posted by: Matamoros at May 29, 2008 11:26 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10SvHhGG3Xg

Posted by: Hugh at May 29, 2008 11:27 AM

Sorry, by "brainwashing" I meant "whitewashing".

Posted by: Matamoros at May 29, 2008 11:29 AM

Runciman's book was one of the saddest I've ever read, and if you take it as the end-point of a story that began with the founding of Rome 2100 years before, the already-potent drama is magnified immensely.

There's another lesson to be learned in Constantinople's fall: disunity kills. The Greeks after the reign of Basil II made a hobby of being shortsighted and eventually lost everything. We'd do well to remember that today, too.

Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at May 29, 2008 11:45 AM

Matamoros:

To be honest with you Spencer, sometimes I feel irritated by the National-Catholicism reflected by some of your posts. Try to be neutral, and take in account that not everybody who reads you is catholic, including me (I am Jewsih). And if you want my opinion, I have no sympathy for the catholic church. So stop brainwashing the bloody history of the Papists. (I read all your books).

1. What is National-Catholicism?

2. Have you missed the hundreds upon hundreds of posts supporting Israel?

3. Can you please produce even one post that proselytizes on behalf of "National-Catholicism," whatever that is, or Catholicism?

4. Is the horror of the siege of Constantinople somehow mitigated by the fact that the people there were Christians?

5. The people in Constantinople were not Catholic. They were Orthodox Christians.

6. In what possible way can you read the post above as "whitewashing the bloody history of the Papists," who don't figure in it at all?

7. Are you aware that your screen handle is the name of a Catholic saint?

8. I deny the charge. In my books The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and particularly Religion of Peace? I discuss, forthrightly and fully, what you term "the bloody history of the Papists" particularly in regard to the Jews. Have you read the chapter of Religion of Peace? on Christian antisemitism? I doubt you could have done so and still say I am "whitewashing." Bring your proof, if you be truthful, as the Qur'an says.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 29, 2008 11:48 AM

Matamoros:

Don't be like the islamo-fascists, don't live in the past. Centuries ago, the island of what is now UK was a Celtic territory before the Germanic invasion. Amerindians lived peacefully in the great plains of the US. Black Africans led a primitive but happy existance in africa. etc...etc... We can't do nothing now to modify the consequence of past events. So just forget the past (after you learned from it), and work for the future. Costantinople will no longer be a christian metropole, live with it.

You have utterly and completely missed the point, which was about Israel and the Palestinians.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 29, 2008 11:51 AM

National-Catholicism, Matamoros, is a gratuitous insult, a likely allusion to National Socialism, i.e., Naziism, and to the myth of "Hitler's Pope."

I hope you apologize for any needless offense you mioght have given. Keep in mind the sincere efforts of Catholics and their Church to atone for past antisemitism and to advance reconciliation and understanding with the Jewish people.

Posted by: John C at May 29, 2008 12:10 PM

I see Robert responded before I could get in.

Many groups around the world right now do not want to live in the present and move on with it, and the two biggest are the Palestinians and their "Nakba" when they fled their property in order to destroy the Jews in the Holy Land only to lose, and then continue to attack Israel again and again, and wonder why Israel wants the buffer land between them and other Arab states.

The other being Aztlan - again, we need to live in the present but be mindful of the past. You can't continue to bring up the "evils" of the "crusades" and the "crusaders" without showing the other side, and how far Islam was able to conquer into Europe before they were stopped. So don't bring up Nakba without the whole truth, and don't bring up Aztlan without the whole truth (such as Mexico specifically brought up the fact that they couldn't handle the Native Americans living in Aztlan, and the treaty called for the U.S. to make sure they didn't invade the new boundary of Mexico, so I guess the U.S. really did steal it, huh?).

Thanks for posting this Robert.

Posted by: V.I.N.C.E.N.T. at May 29, 2008 12:12 PM

Matamoros:

Oh, I see. Reading John C.'s post, I realize you're calling me a fascist.

Classy!

But anyway, look: this is not a sectarian site. It has never been a sectarian site. You will not be able to find one proselytizing post. From the beginning I have spoken about the need for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists -- everyone threatened by Islamic supremacism -- to unite against the jihad threat. I've been consistent in that, and have posted numerous articles about jihadist initiatives against all those groups and others.

If you don't like the fact that stories of the persecution of Christians, past and present, coexist on this site with stories defending Israel and refuting historical lies about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or if you take the posting of stories about the jihadist persecution of Christians as evidence of some kind of Catholic fascism, then there is a simple solution: stop reading this site.

You won't be missed.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 29, 2008 12:18 PM

Robert (and others), I should point out that the Matamoros who posted the above messages, and myself (the Matamoros that has posted here for a couple of years, and has occasionally corresponded with you on certain issues) are not the same person.

It is one of the weaknesses of TypeKey that while it requires unique individual usernames, it does allow for identical screen names. I know because I asked Typkey myself when I saw first encountered this guy's nick a couple of days ago in a post stating support for Vlaams Belang (something which I think you know that I would never do. I thought I'd been hacked in some way).

Posted by: Matamoros at May 29, 2008 12:28 PM

Robert:

An outstanding post and a cogent reminder. Many thanks.

Matamoros:

Peaceful Amerindians? Primitive but happy Africans? No intertribal warfare? Everything hunky-dory until those wicked white folks came along?

It is to laugh. Go back to your post-colonialist playpen.

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at May 29, 2008 12:31 PM

Dear RS & JihadWatch:

It's deja vu all over again.

I don't think Matamoros intended a personal insult--it's just that his sarcasm rubs the wrong way. It seems to happen when something comes up that sparks his animus toward certain POVs.

I hate to see a falling-out among comrades. [Off-line, I have my own amends to make.]

Posted by: John C at May 29, 2008 12:32 PM

No, it never occurred to me that there were TWO of you--presumably BOTH Jewish! Go figure!!

Posted by: John C at May 29, 2008 12:37 PM

When I learned of the fall of Constantinople in early grade school after class I told my teacher we should start another Crusade to get it back. 3rd grade maybe? For which she gave me a gentle tassle of the hair, and said, "Your a good boy". AAAHHH the good old days. Now I'd be given Ridalin and sent for reeducation.

Posted by: ethoman at May 29, 2008 12:40 PM

Matamoros,

Do you know anyone who writes about global jihad with greater care, precision and lack of bias than Robert Spencer? If so please tell, I know I don't.

Anyone?

Posted by: StephenA55 at May 29, 2008 12:43 PM

Robert's posting at 11:48 took care of the whole thing, and the rest is repetition.

So about the absurd charges -- I thought something would come to mind, but it hasn't, save to note that if this site were in fact a Christian-Crusade site, possibly of the Gerald L. K. Smith variety (as yes, "The Cross and the Flag"), then Robert certainly has a most peculiar way of going about it. And he also invites the most peculiar guests aboard his Ship of Theocratic State, his "National-Catholicism," his Christ-craft.

I thought I might have more to say on the bizarrerie of the charges made, even if there was no longer any need to refute them, but discover that I haven't a thing to air.

I do have one bone to pick, however, with you or, rather, wishbone to split, and the wish I make (well, I see I'm left with the larger part, which means my wish gets to come true) is that a phrase that appears in your reply of 12:18 -- "Israel-Palestinian conflict" -- is not the most accurate or best way to describe the Jihad conducted against Israel. And I think you, in a less-hot-under-the-putatively-fascistic-clerical-collar mood, would completely agree.

See? Best to be like me. I never get mad at anyone.

Posted by: Hugh at May 29, 2008 12:44 PM

Matamoros

The point is Constantinople is a part of western tradition, history, and culture. For centuries Byzantium prevented Islamic invasions into Europe. Yet it was the same Europe that was protected by Constantinople that ultimately turned their back on city. Starting with the 4th Crusade, and their sack of the city, until its ultimate defeat in 1453, Europeans were as much responsible for its fall as anyone. They sold them out to the Turkish invaders. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox fued was one reason, but ethnic reasons, stupidity, laziness, and general greed were others. The fall of Constantinople was a disaster for Western Civilization. The Turkish hordes would push into mainland Europe, and it would take over 300 years to undo those conquests. Yet today the city that did so much to save Europe, and the civilization it created, has been forgotten.

It does us well to remember them for it could be our fate as well. Israel today faces a similar situation. Today many think Israel should be sold down the river as well. I do not defend Israel, because it is Jewish (or if was Christian, or Atheist), but because it is an oasis of Western Civilization in a sea of barbarism. If Israel were to fall, it would be a disaster for Western Civilization in the same way Constantinople was.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 29, 2008 12:51 PM

Hugh:

do have one bone to pick, however, with you or, rather, wishbone to split, and the wish I make (well, I see I'm left with the larger part, which means my wish gets to come true) is that a phrase that appears in your reply of 12:18 -- "Israel-Palestinian conflict" -- is not the most accurate or best way to describe the Jihad conducted against Israel. And I think you, in a less-hot-under-the-putatively-fascistic-clerical-collar mood, would completely agree.

Yep, I would.

Yrs
Robert

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 29, 2008 12:57 PM

Matamoros (the first one): I am not a Catholic and yet have an admiration for the papacy. While still considering going on to get a PhD in medieval history before deciding to get a law degree instead, I read a fair amount in the history and historiography of the Middle Ages. One thing that I noticed time and time again was how a pogrom against Jews, perpetrated by Christians who shamed their faith, was put a stop to by a particular pope. And Pius XII saved more Jews during WWII than any other single individual, even though now it is fashionable to criticize him for not publicly speaking out against the Nazis, never mind that he and many prominent Jews at that time concluded doing so would have been deeply counter-productive, as the Dutch incident in May of 1943 proved so clearly. Just for the record, I would argue that the entire world, not just the Roman Catholic world, is better off with the institution of the papacy than without it. It serves as a moral beacon in a world that is often way too dark.

Posted by: Wellington at May 29, 2008 12:58 PM

I think there was a Muslim Turkish writer who suggested that, in fairness to the Orthodox, they should be able to worship at Hagia Sophia as it is the principle religious site of Orthodoxy.

Although I understand the desire of Christians to retake it — and believe that Muslims consider it a great charm held with the most extraordinary arrogance — a war in which many will die will result of the kind of reversal of the Nakba ever takes place.

So, who will decide that it's OK to sacrifice more bystanders to religious wars over terroritories???? Who says whom it is OK to kill over a church or mosque, and how will one explain this to God, by whatever name, that human beings killed over a "holy place" or over "Dar-al-Islam" one more time.

What is important now is that we make it clear that desert tribalism, elevated to the rank of god-born in Islam, will not be tolerated in the West.

But domination tactics that simply reverse dominant masters who will war in then a name of God has to stop. I think this is what drives Hitchens nuts.

Whatever the solution, I don't think it will look like more domination politics.

Hagia Sofia is not a mosque now. It is a museum. Ataturk turned it into a museum in 1935, REMOVING THE WHITE PLASTER WITH WHICH MUSLIMS HAD COVERED THE ICONS. The icons were restored. The relics were actually hidden by Mehmet to prevent their being destroyed. They were located in the column in which he hid them, and great care was taken by the Turkish government to restore them.

Now, perhaps in the future when all this is a kinder and gentler reality, the Orthodox will worship there again.

But pray there is no loss of life and that it is done in kindness, with love, and with compassion, as I believe Christ would have it.

Turn it back into a mosque? Of course not. But do not risk its destruction by trying to regain it by fiat or with violence.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at May 29, 2008 1:02 PM

Please note also that the priceless Orthodox icons in the church were covered with white plaster — and not destroyed — because Mehmet II would not ALLOW Muslims to destroy them, considering them priceless.

This is not an argument that the Caliphate should have overtaken the principal site of Orthodoxy — far from it. But I think it should be noted he would not allow the artwork which, according to his own religion was haram, to be destroyed. Otherwise Hagia Sophia would not be the glistening tribute to Orthodoxy that it is today.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at May 29, 2008 1:04 PM

It's ridiculous to accuse Robert Spencer of having a bias here. There are few people around who write with more balance regarding the effects of Islamic Jihad across the entire world.

Posted by: Fjordman at May 29, 2008 1:05 PM

Morgaan:

The icons weren't restored. They were uncovered, but many are in a severe state of disrepair, as is the building itself, and nothing is being done. Also, the large Islamic medallions still remain in place, covering other icons.

The mosaic Pantocrator icon, perhaps the grandest Pantocrator icon ever produced anywhere, is in terrible shape.

Also, Islamic prayer is still allowed in this "museum." Christian prayer is not.

All that said, I was not in this post advocating a war against Turkey over Occupied Constantinople. I was making a point about the jihad against Israel, and the larger global jihad.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 29, 2008 1:05 PM

Morgaan:

Please note also that the priceless Orthodox icons in the church were covered with white plaster — and not destroyed — because Mehmet II would not ALLOW Muslims to destroy them, considering them priceless.

Considering the fact that he allowed the altar and the surrounding area (there was, interestingly enough, no iconostasis in the Hagia Sophia) to be utterly obliterated, I suspect that decision, if he made it, was motivated more by financial calculation than by any respect for the "People of the Book."

This is not an argument that the Caliphate should have overtaken the principal site of Orthodoxy — far from it. But I think it should be noted he would not allow the artwork which, according to his own religion was haram, to be destroyed.

There was, without any doubt at all, a great deal of artwork elsewhere in the building, that has not survived.

Otherwise Hagia Sophia would not be the glistening tribute to Orthodoxy that it is today.

With respect, I don't see how a building topped with crescent and star (replacing a cross) and surrounded by minarets, in which there is no sanctuary or altar, and in which the icons are in various states of decay and/or are partially or wholly covered by Islamic medallions bearing the Shahada and other Islamic declarations, can in any sense be considered a "glistening tribute to orthodoxy."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 29, 2008 1:12 PM

Fjordman

Many thanks.

Be well.

Yrs
R

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 29, 2008 1:13 PM

Morgaan:

Also, please note Runciman, quoted above:

"In the Chora they left the mosaics and frescoes, but they destroyed the icon of the Mother of God, the Hodigitria, the holiest picture in all Byzantium, painted, so men said, by Saint Luke himself. It had been taken there from its own church beside the Palace at the beginning of the siege, that its beneficient presence might be at hand to inspire the defenders on the walls. It was taken from its setting and hacked into four pieces."

Mehmet knew they did that. Mehmet did not stop them from doing that. Mehmet was giving all the orders.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 29, 2008 1:20 PM

We can also thank “enlightened” western leaders in Britain and France for preventing the Russians from taking Constantinople during the Crimean War. Kind of reminds me of another place in Europe today.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 29, 2008 1:24 PM

But there is hope, the march of Islam is not unstoppable, it is not a foregone conclusion. Remember the Reconquista, and the turning point at the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa. Perhaps, Robert, you will write something morale boosting on the 16th of July, the anniversary of Las Navas.

BTW, I am Jewish but I seriously doubt that Matamoros (the first) is, if it turns out that he is, then he should know better. Yes, Jews have at times suffered at the hands of over-zealous Christians, but at least Christianity, unlike Islam, doesn't have anti-semitism as a fundamental docrine in it's primary texts.

Posted by: Tziona at May 29, 2008 1:41 PM

Hi, Robert ...

I'm sorry to hear that. It seems odd that Mehmet would have known that since he made a point of NOT allowing the destruction of many icons depicting the Holy Mother. I wasn't there, so I can't exactly what happened with that. But perhaps the fact that this relic was destroyed is what made Mehmet II give the order that none of the icons was to be touched. Something motivated him to do that, perhaps fearing — or already having evidence — that some of his people would seek to destroy all of the art as representing the human form. But on balance I think it can be said that he gave an order, which he expected to be followed, that Christian artwork was not to be destroyed. In fact, in Turkish Ottoman art itself, there is endless representation of the human form, and even of the Prophet himself, and some of it was in the Palace & Mosque exhibit at the Smithsonian in 2005. A mutual "friend" of ours, who shall remain nameless (but you know who I mean), saw it together, and we both remarked that the Ottoman paintings and illustrations would never be allowed in Wahhabi-version Islam at all and most certainly would have been destroyed. In fact, the whole exhibit could not have been shown in Saudi Arabia or Iran at all.

That said, the destruction of the Hodigitria is an incalculable loss and debt of acknowledgement and apology that Islam owes Christianity.

I know what you mean. They'll scream bloody murder about what happens to a copy of the Qur'an but show no understanding or compassion for what it means to destroy the holiest of all icons, an original that can never be replaced.

I just doubt seriously that Mehmet II had anything to do with it or would have approved.

But then, he should never have made war on Constantinople to begin with, so it ***is*** his fault.

Warmest regards,
Morgaan

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at May 29, 2008 1:54 PM

I agree that Constantinople is lost forever and I do not see the point. Greece should instead focus its attention on protecting its; borders, lanugage and cutlure from the illegal alien invasion and deport them all, most of whom are Muslims.

My late Greek grandfather was born in Istanbul prior to the expulsion of the Greek population in 1955 and the early 60's so as a Greek I understand the pain my ancestors went through from the loss of this great city. I have also researched it a lot- the fall of Constantinople 1453.

I also spent 5 months in Istanbul and most of the Greeks are gone and there are very few Christians there; Orthodox, Catholic or Prostestant.

It is good to remember how great the Byzantine Empire was and the greatness of this city. It is good to remember how the Greeks fought to keep onto this city but the possbility of this becoming a Greek city is silly or at least in our life time.

Posted by: eaglecap at May 29, 2008 2:06 PM

P.S. It's equivalencies like this that make me just a little uncomfortable — not that it shouldn't be said. But comparing current Christian mores, which are so elevated above the current desert tribalist-Islamic ones that there's no comparison at all, with the actions of Muslims 550 years ago, causes me some concern.

Matamoros II (or whatever) dredges up Papal cruelties of bygone times, and we cringe and cry foul. And I think that's right. I don't think it's right to smear today's Catholic church with the acts of the Papacy in the 15th century, which was the height of the Spanish Inquisition — a great war against Jews and Muslims that saw, in 1492, the expulsion of two million people and the torture and murder of tens of thousands more in the following century, many of them women ... whose bodies were hacked to pieces (or burned) like the icon of the Virgin Mary.

So the general tenor of this time among both Muslims and Christians was not good. Christianity, as you point out in your latest book, has gone through a tremendous tranformation — back to its roots of kindness and compassion and the dignity and worth of all people — a transformation that is incomplete in some regards, but incredibly beautiful on balance. Islam has not. Islam is regressing and should hope to get back EVEN to the point that there's somebody around like Mehmet II who will say: NO, DO NOT CULTURECIDE CHRISTANITY'S ARTWORK. Compared to some of his contemporaries in Western Europe, Mehmet II doesn't fare so badly. He did not, in fact, expel every Christian and Jew from the whole country, expropriating every shred of everything they owned. He enforced jizya, which was despicable, but he did not threaten that if every Jew and Christian did not leave the country they would be killed, which Isbella, in fact, did when she expelled the Muslims and Jews.

What really worries me is that when people say "500 years of occupation is enough" ... what that implies is another domination overthrow — WAR — in which everybody standing on the sidelines has to lose.

Those are old ways for all of us, because that never ends. And the suggestion of that kind of violent "retaking" of the Hagia Sophia means only that it will be destroyed.

Meanwhile, I think we should raise money to have an international delegation of art restorers to lovingly restore the icons to their former splendor.

And, as my Muslim friend in Istanbul says: IF MUSLIMS CAN OFFER PRAYERS THERE, SO SHOULD CHRISTIANS.

Or, nobody should.

Cheers,
Morgaan

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at May 29, 2008 2:09 PM

eaglecap:

Second time, repeated from 11:51AM comment above:

"You have utterly and completely missed the point, which was about Israel and the Palestinians."

Let me spell it out: I am not calling for military reconquest of Constantinople. I am trying to show that two can play the "refugee right of return game," and if it is absurd re Constantinople and Anatolia, and it is, it is absurd re Israel, and it is.

I was also trying to show the continuity of jihad aggression against non-Muslim entities, and the fact that contemporary jihadists are motivated by the same doctrines that motivated Mehmet II (including Muhammad's prophecy about the Islamic conquest of Constantinople and Rome).

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 29, 2008 2:10 PM

John C:

“No, it never occurred to me that there were TWO of you--presumably BOTH Jewish! Go figure!!”

That guy was about as Jewish as the Ayatollah’s beard. Call me paranoid, but my guess is that it was one of our resident “ethno-nationalist” creepos - posting in my nick, claiming to be “Jewsih” AND proclaiming support for Vlaams Belang - yeah, right. (Given the dig at RS’s Catholicism, above, I have a good idea which one too. The poor grammar is a giveaway).

Still, the laugh is on them. I’m no computer whiz, but if I recall from my own brief banning experience, JW’s banning system works on IPs, not Typekey idents. So when they try to post again using their usual name, they will get a surprise. Good.

The creepy coincidence is that I am currently reading Constantinople: the Last Siege by Roger Crowley, an excellent account of the final battle for the city.

What needs restating is the fact that the Muslims waited nearly 800 years to conquer the city, from the first Arab fleet that set out in 669 to the eventual Ottoman victory in 1453.

Our enemies are patient, and quite used to playing the long game.

Posted by: Matamoros at May 29, 2008 2:12 PM

I apologize for the badly written entry. I was distracted at the moment of writing it, and it is just now, that I realize my comment may potentially lead the reader to misinterpret what i tried to say. Let me clarify some points.

1.What is National-Catholicism?

A: It’s an ideology that mixes Catholic fervor, ultra-nationalism and ethno-centrism. “Por dios, la patria y la raza” (For God, the Country and the Race), used to chant the right-wing national-Catholics at the time of the dictator Franco.
Today they call themselves “liberals”. They no longer are Franquists (or at least the new generations), however, they’re still fervently catholics and ultra-nationalists, and are obsessed with all sorts of conspiracies, especially “the masonry”. They’re also xenophobic (overtly) and anti-semitic (covertly).
A major right-wing Spanish newspaper wrote some years ago about what they call “the Jewish lobby in Madrid”. By “lobby” they mean, 3000 jews (most of them from Northern Morocco) who live in Madrid since the 60’s, including some prominent businessmen and personalities. Describing the tiny Jewish community of Madrid as a “lobby”, proves that anti-Semitism is still well preserved in a corner in the heart of many Spaniards. Let me remind you that Spain, according to a 2002 survey, is the Western European country where anti-semitic prejudice is most widespread.

In other parts of Europe, the equivalent of the Spanish national-catholics would be the French Lepenists, the Italians Lega-Nord-ists, and the catholic wing of the Vlaams belang. Some here would say they’re the only one who are standing up against Islam, it may be true, but believe me, it’s not for the “good” reason.
And the sudden philo-semitism of some of them (including the BNP recently) is just smoke to hid their real agenda and motivation.

2. Have you missed the hundreds upon hundreds of posts supporting Israel?

I never doubted your sincerity, or that of Americans in general. I just don’t trust the new “jew-loving” Europeans, especially the Catholics of a certain sort. Also I never implied you’re someone who belongs to the category I described above. I just said, some of your ideas irritate me because they remind me of the history-centered obsessions of the ultra-catholics.

3. Can you please produce even one post that proselytizes on behalf of "National-Catholicism," whatever that is, or Catholicism?

I never said you’re a “proselytizer”. I just said I don’t agree with some of your attempts to white-wash the history of the Catholics.
Note I always say “catholic”, and not “Christian”. Because I have a great sympathy towards Protestants and other Christians.
By the way, I apologize for using the term “papist”, I just found out it’s an offensive word.

4. Is the horror of the siege of Constantinople somehow mitigated by the fact that the people there were Christians?

No, I never said that. I just said that Constantinople belonged to history. And that causes or platforms or whatever they are, like “Free Constantinople” are not going to help the anti-jihad movement. Because doing that, implies that the struggle against Jihad is a Christian and western stuff. While both westerners and non-westerners and both Christians and non Christians, are affected by the bloody spread of Islam. By turning Jihad Watch into a platform of Christian and western advocacy, you exclude systematically all people who may be crucial allies in this struggle, including Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.
But hey, this is your blog and I am not going to “dictate” what you should do with it.

5. The people in Constantinople were not Catholic. They were Orthodox Christians.

Yes you’re right.

6. In what possible way can you read the post above as "whitewashing the bloody history of the Papists," who don't figure in it at all?

It would be impossible to engage in a debate on who’s right and who’s wrong. Let just say that I don’t agree with everything you said in PIGIC (for example), like “PC Myth: Crusades were called against Jews in addition to Muslims”. Christians are today peaceful and decent people, but let’s not manipulate the facts, both Roman Catholics and Muslims have a bloody history.
The excuses you gave in “PIGIC” and “Religion of Peace?”, could also be used by Muslims to whitewash their history.
Let’s just agree to disagree. Ok?

7. Are you aware that your screen handle is the name of a Catholic saint?

It’s not a name but a “nickname”. Matamoros means “Muslim-Killer” or “Moor-Killer”. And no, I didn’t know he was a saint, although I heard he was the patron (or something like this) of Galicia.
Best wishes,

Posted by: Matamoros at May 29, 2008 3:40 PM

At the fall of Constantinople, in the great Hagia Sophia cathedral, “most of the worshippers were tied together … herded through the streets to the bivouacs of the soldiers, who quarreled fiercely for possession of the comelier girls and youths” (Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries). Shortly thereafter, the Byzantine historian Doukas tells how Mehmed left Constantinople taking back “in wagons and on horseback all the [Byzantine] noblewomen and their daughters.” (Peirce, The Imperial Harem). This illustrates one of the most important factors underlying the expansion of Islam. This was the appropriation of masses of infidel women whose destiny was to serve as breeding stock in the harems of the Muslim elite. The fact that the degradation of women was such a crucial factor in Islam’s expansion probably accounts for its current misogyny and suppression of women. Of course, western feminists so blindly consumed with their hatred of the White Male are impervious to learning this important lesson.

It is true that Mehmet, for all his acknowledged brutality, was reportedly far from being a Muslim fanatic. He is an example of a frequently occurring case among Muslim leaders. He was an unscrupulous and ruthless ruler and impious by Islamic standards. He was also pragmatic in dealing with his non-Muslim subjects and foreigners. He even had some interest in other religions and heretical syncretistic Muslim sects. He also decorated his apartment with Italian Renaissance art and imported an artist from Venice to paint his portrait. Yet, he was quite content to use the warlike zeal provoked by Islam to further his worldly ambitions and was not about to chance the storm that would arise if he openly showed disrespect for Islam or threatened its monopoly of power.

Posted by: RBLA at May 29, 2008 3:53 PM

Matamoros:

How about sending a similar message to the Islamists?

We can't do nothing now to modify the consequence of past events. So just forget the past (after you learned from it), and work for the future. Spain will no longer be an Islamic fiefdom, live with it.

My addendum (to the Islamists, not you):

The world does not belong to Islam. Get used to it.

Posted by: PMK at May 29, 2008 3:55 PM

Matamoros (the insipid imposter) wrote:

"While both westerners and non-westerners and both Christians and non Christians, are affected by the bloody spread of Islam. By turning Jihad Watch into a platform of Christian and western advocacy, you exclude systematically all people who may be crucial allies in this struggle, including Jews, Hindus and Buddhists."

From the header of the main page and the explicit goal of this site:
-----
Why Jihad Watch?
Because non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies and bring them forcibly into the Islamic world -- and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.
-----

Based on that intellectual laziness on your part, or for more dubious reasons I suspect, your stay here will be short, in my estimation.

I suggest Robert you him solely on the grounds that he be forced to pick a new moniker, so that your outright lies and double-speak can be spotted more easily and also so that the real matamoros does not have to defend and separate himself from your inane ramblings.

It is a privilage to comment here on this site, not a right...Get used to it.

Posted by: awake at May 29, 2008 4:05 PM

Matamoros is just another asinine troll in the shape of so many we have seen before. Jerusalem was conquered by Islamists a full 800 years before Constantinople fell to the Turks, and for the past 60 years has ben a part of Israel following 1,300 years of Islamic rule. And there is the Reconquista - the 775 year long campaign to retuirn the Iberian Peninsula to Christrian rule, and according to Matamoros logic, Granada should never have been Christian again. Had things been left to the Matamoroses of this world, the West would have gone under irreversibly in 732 AD, and a last question. Why do we entertain Matamoros? He contributes nothing useful to these boards at all. At heart, he's an apologist for evil.

And lets turn to RBLA. The fall of Constantinople was followed by three days of murder, raping pillaging and looting. This is what Ottoman Emperors were like. What we saw at Constantinople was repeated at Famagusta in 1570. Citizens murdered after being promised their safety. That was the Ottoman way. And the lessons of 1453 in Constantinople weren't lost on the defenders of Vienna in 1529, or the Venetians at Lepanto in 1571. Give no quarter was the motto. Kill or be killed took on a thoroughly new meaning, because Christians knew what to expect if their cities fell to the Turks, and if they didn't annihilate the Turks, they would be ruthlessly butchered just like the inhabitants of Constantinople. That is what drove on the Viennese in 1529 and 1683. And for the first time in over 300 years, Westerners are once again being asked to live up to the likes of Graf von Salm and Sobieski. And we won't succeed in doing that if we are held back by the can't do/won't do brigade.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at May 29, 2008 4:28 PM

What needs restating is the fact that the Muslims waited nearly 800 years to conquer the city, from the first Arab fleet that set out in 669 to the eventual Ottoman victory in 1453.

TYhey didn't wait 800 years to conquer the city. Comnstantinople was besieged 22 times by the Islamists from around 676 AD before they finally got their way in 1453. Get yourself a brain (whichever Matamoros that is)

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at May 29, 2008 4:40 PM

And, lastly, wasn't Istanbul 50% non-Muslim as recentrly as 1914, compared with 1% non-Muslim todaty. Hmm, I wonder how this dramatic change has come about over the last 94 years. *rolls eyes*

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at May 29, 2008 4:58 PM

Yes, TWO can play the irredenta game.

FREE OCCUPIED CYPRUS! Kick the Turkish carpetbaggers out of "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" NOW!!

Posted by: John C at May 29, 2008 5:38 PM

Spirit Of 1683: "The fall of Constantinople was followed by three days of murder, raping pillaging and looting. This is what Ottoman Emperors were like. What we saw at Constantinople was repeated at Famagusta in 1570. Citizens murdered after being promised their safety."

Quite correct. The experience of the city of Trebizond is also enlightening. Mehmet promised them leniency and freedom if they surrendered. They did and the Ottomans broke their promise and enslaved the population.

It's also true that Constantinople was besieged many times by Muslim Arabs and Turks, and once by the pagan Rus. It withstood all those sieges until taken by an act of treachery by greedy Fourth Crusaders spurred on by the Doge of Venice. That act of civilizational treason laid the ground for its later fall to the Turks and is chillingly similar to the more recent civilizational crime committed against Serbia by the Americans and NATO.

Posted by: RBLA at May 29, 2008 5:47 PM

It withstood all those sieges until taken by an act of treachery by greedy Fourth Crusaders spurred on by the Doge of Venice.

There's plenty of mud to be slung here, not just at the Crusaders. They were being used as pawns in the Angelus family soap opera, as Alexius III deposed (and blinded) his brother Isaac II, only to be deposed in turn by Isaac's son Alexius IV, who himself had made extravagant promises of payment to the Crusaders that he couldn't keep when his uncle ran off with the treasury.

What the Crusaders did was vile, but the Greek rulers of the time were pretty wretched, too.

Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at May 29, 2008 6:32 PM

Hesperado has written an article on Islam and Constantinople
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2007/11/conquest-of-constantinople-jihad.html

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at May 29, 2008 8:51 PM

The creepy coincidence is that I am currently reading Constantinople: the Last Siege by Roger Crowley, an excellent account of the final battle for the city.
Posted by: Matamoros

Another excellent book by the same author is 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West, Hyperion, 2005. It comes with battle maps.

You can still see the outer walls that for 800 years defended Constantinople against the Muslims by going to Google Earth and zooming in to the coordinates 41.0141N, 28.9221E. This is Rhegium Gate, one of 12 gates into the city along the
Theodosian Wall, which you can easily trace stretching north and south from there, still intact.

As long as you're in Constantinople (Istanbul), you MUST see Hagia Sophia, at 41.00858N, 28.97993E. These coordinates will put directly (withing about a meter) of the center of the central dome. If you look closely you can see the shadows of the four minarets at the corners. In fact, I have found this is a nearly fool proof way to spot mosques using Google Earth - just look for the shadows of the minarets.

Slightly to the southwest of Hagia Sophia is the Blue Mosque. It's easy to spot - round dome, shadows of four minarets.

Posted by: Eastview at May 29, 2008 10:32 PM

Where is the film-maker who will make an epic about the Fall of Constantinople?

But who will also - after depicting unflinchingly, towards the end, the R-rated horror of the mass murders and the rapes, the mass enslavement, the hellish ecstasies of pillage, vandalism and systematic mean-minded desecration of others' holy places, the Nazi-like sadism of jihadis possessed by all that is most evil in human nature - cut to a recitation of John 1: 1-14. Recited in the Turkish, and in the Kurdish, translations. (The Kurdish scholar who created the modern Kurdish translation of the gospels, apostasised from Islam thanks to the close contact with the Biblical text that his work required, and became a professing, actively evangelising Christian).

And one would close the film with the voices of formerly-Muslim Kurds and Turks, now confessing Christians, explaining why they have renounced Islam and embraced the faith of the very people whom their jihadi forefathers mass-murdered for allah.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 29, 2008 10:40 PM

BTW, today, 29 May, 2008, is 555 years to the day since Constantinople fell.

An anecdote tangentially relevant to the current thread: several years ago I had occasion to have dinner with an attractive Turkish lady in Barcelona. I had just finished reading the book 1453 and, being anxious to impress her with my newly acquired historical knowledge, started recounting the exploits of Mehmet II, the 23 year old commander of the Muslim forces in the the conquest of Constantinople. I was stopped dead in my tracks, however, when she informed me that the word "conquest" was inappropriate - the correct word for Mehmet II's actions was "liberation." At that point I knew it was time to change the subject. For me the story of the fall Constantinople was one of complete and utter catastrophe for the Byzantines. For her it was one of a glorious victory.

Posted by: Eastview at May 29, 2008 10:51 PM

An anecdote tangentially relevant to the current thread: several years ago I had occasion to have dinner with an attractive Turkish lady in Barcelona. I had just finished reading the book 1453 and, being anxious to impress her with my newly acquired historical knowledge, started recounting the exploits of Mehmet II, the 23 year old commander of the Muslim forces in the the conquest of Constantinople. I was stopped dead in my tracks, however, when she informed me that the word "conquest" was inappropriate - the correct word for Mehmet II's actions was "liberation." At that point I knew it was time to change the subject. For me the story of the fall Constantinople was one of complete and utter catastrophe for the Byzantines. For her it was one of a glorious victory.

You should have certainly changed the subject. You should have gone on to describe Jan Sobieski's victory over the Turks at Vienna in 1683 as a "liberation".

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at May 30, 2008 6:10 AM

"You can still see the outer walls that for 800 years defended Constantinople against the Muslims by going to Google Earth"

Eastview, thank you very much for this information, and for the coordinates. You’re right, the Theodosian walls can still be seen. Amazing. I’ve never used Google Earth before - what an excellent resource.

This should make finding Bin Laden a doddle…

Posted by: Matamoros at May 30, 2008 9:54 AM

The 700 year long conquests by Islam over the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, and the Byzantine Empire is astonishing; and it reminds me of the long struggle against the Borg in Star Trek. The Borg's mantra, like that of today's Islamist Jihadists, is "resistance is futile."

We are in a civilizational, and existential war for the survival of our God-given rights to our faith, our life, and our liberty.

The defenders of Spain and Vienna did well as they secured their faith and life; but liberty, as understood by our American founding fathers, was not a feature of life for anyone in those days.

How much harder will we Americans fight today - not only to defend our rights to faith and life - but to secure our right to freedom?

How much harder will Americans fight to defend the lives of their children and grandchildren - and also to secure a future of freedom for our children and grandchildren?

American God-given liberty is what distinguishes us from those who have fought the evil of Islamic conquest in the past.

Posted by: Storm-Rider at May 30, 2008 12:27 PM

I'D FOOLISHLY THOUGHT JIHAD WATCH WAS A STRAIGHTFORWARD HONEST CRITIQUE OF MUSLIM FANATICSIM AND ITS THREAT TO THE WEST HOWEVER SEEING HOW FAST MY POSTING RE: METAMORONS BIGOTRY AGAINST "PAPISTS" WAS TAKEN DOWN I SEE ITS JUST ANOTHER PC BLOG AFRAID OF "ANTISEMINIST" CHARGES. METAMORON BROUGHT UP JEWISHNESS, I SIMPLY REFUTIATED HIS ASSERTIONS.

Posted by: mmalfi at May 30, 2008 11:37 PM