In Normandy, it’s not just the cheese that’s soft and runny.
6 thoughts on “Normandy Cheese”
I heard a comment yesterday that President Bush was considering sending Marines to France to quell the rioting…
it’s expected to take five.
Churches and Synagogues Have Been Attacked
Churches and Synagogues have been burned by these mobs. I don’t think it is an occaision for humor. Nidra Poller, and American, Jewish ex-pat, living in France has been reporting that there has been a steady increase in crimes against Jews in France by Muslim thugs and that the French police had not taken the crimes seriously. By crimes, I mean serious beatings of Jewish people riding public transporation, fire-bombings, and murder. She has been reporting this for several years now.
Tariq Ali a Force to Be Reckoned With
Tariq Ali, a leading Muslims intellectual, was denied entry to the United States based on his ties to terror groups. He is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the precursor to Al-Quaeda (sp.?) He is a force to be reckoned with as shown by the following:
I saw Ali on a recent History Channel production on the Crusades. It was a dhimmi history all right. The producers interviewed English historians of the Crusade and two Arab historians of the crusades.
Tariq Ali wrote a book on the Arab hero Saladin so he was presented as a historian of the Crusades. The History Channel accurately pointed out that Saladin probably murdered his mentor, a king of a medium-sized city-state, and his mentor’s son. Ali mused as follows “Was Saladin ruthless? Probably yes, but you had to be ruthless to survive.” No actually, Saladin chose to be ruthless to gain power and control over territory and to do so, he murdered someone who had virtually adopted him as a son.
At one point Ali acknowledges that Saladin beheaded about 600 Knights Templar and Knights Hospitalier who were his prisoners of war. Ali referred to this act as “shock and awe.” The reference to the American campaign in Iraq. Clever arguments encased in that short reference. Tariq implies that no one can criticize Saladin for the beheadings because after all American supposedly did something similar. [THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE AND DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH, but, HE slips it in so quickly that is quite disarming unless you are very prepared to notice it and to challenge him]
However, when Richard the Lion Hearted beheaded Arab knights, he was referred to as “cruel.” Both actions were cruel by today’s standards but there were probably CUSTOMARY by the standards of the time. Remember the entire idea of “rules of war” which is really an oxymoron, is Western and it developed many centuries later in the Geneva Convention. If Richard I was cruel what was Mohammed when he beheaded ever single male member of the Quayash tribe who were his prisoners? And Mohammed’s example is perfect and worthy of imitation in all respects.
The History Channel allowed Ali to describe violent act committed by Christian armies as “atrocities” and “war-crimes.” This is making the mistake of importing today’s ideas of the rules of war back to the 11th and 12th centuries. However, Tariq Ali presented ruthless and bloody acts by Saladin were accepted as normal for the time period and somehow necessary.
Ali is a very formidable intellectual opponent. He is extremely articulate in English and is a master of propaganda. I am SO RELIEVED that the U.S. Department of State did not let him into the United States. He wanted to establish his viper’s nest in Notre Dame University. This is no accident. It is the leading Roman Catholic University in America and he would have loved to seduce those students away from their Faith, their country and their culture.
What was the net effect? The net effect was to destroy a Western hero. When I was growing up I was taught that Richard the Lion Heart was a hero of England. Now people who see this will believe he was a “war criminal.” This is a very, very insidious form of propaganda. Destroy all the heroes of a culture and there is nothing left to love or be proud of. This is happening all the time. As an adult, I would probably have a more balanced view of Richard I, however, Richard’s attempt to regain the Holy Land for Christianity is no more worthy of blame then the success of the Selucid Turks in taking the Holy Land from the Byzantines.
Even in the Middle Ages, if I were a woman, I would prefer to live under the Christian Byzantines rather than the Islamic Selucid Turks. Our Lord didn’t tell men to beat their wives if they were imperitent or disobedient.
Let is us pray that future State Departments do not let him in. He is truly dangerous.
Correction. Ramadam not Ali barred from U.S.
Argh, I goofed, big time. The author featured in the History Channel presentation was, in fact, Tariq Ali. I confused him with Tariq Ramadam. It was Tariq Ramadam who was denied entry to the United States. Silly and dangerous Joan Krock (heir of the MacDonald’s hamburger fortune) sponsored Ramadam.
Ramadan or Ali. Your assessments of Aliâ??s statements in the documentary were accurate. He was more propaganda than history. I was getting tired of his comment that they (as in Moslems) still talk about them as though, “they were yesterday.” As though this somehow justifies violence today.
Personally I wish they would go beyond the Crusades on discussing the relationship between Western Europe and Islam in documentaries.
Maybe they should delve into the history of the Moslems in India. And see the “benevolence” of the Moghuls to their Hindu subjects. I believe the Hindus still talk about it as though it happened yesterday.
Ali
Yup, Jerry, ol’ Ali was an oily character wasn’t he. He was allowed to attack the character of the Franks and describe them as “barbaric.” The other Arab historian was allowed to use the term “war crimes” with respect to the Christian soldiers. Richard the Lion Heart was described as “cruel.” Arab culture was supposedly so advanced. (Yup, it absorbed the intellectuals of the countries it conquered then claimed that their workproduct was part of the glory of Islamic culture.) My I recommend a book Toby E. Huff, the Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Here is a reference to a very interesting debate between Huff and an Islamic historian by the name of Saliba. http://baheyeldin.com/history/toby-huff-1.html The Western historians of the Crusade did NOT use any negative descriptors of the Arabs, NONE.
Did you note how the History Channel described the conquest of the Byzantine Middle East by the Selucid Turks? There was no discussion of those battles or struggles. You were simply presented with a map with a moving yellow area representing the advancing control of the Turks. I would imagine that belonging to the Christian population after the advance of the Turks must have been hideous. There were probably many people slain and sold into slavery and concubinage.Probably really, really nasty for the women.
I heard a comment yesterday that President Bush was considering sending Marines to France to quell the rioting…
it’s expected to take five.
Churches and Synagogues Have Been Attacked
Churches and Synagogues have been burned by these mobs. I don’t think it is an occaision for humor. Nidra Poller, and American, Jewish ex-pat, living in France has been reporting that there has been a steady increase in crimes against Jews in France by Muslim thugs and that the French police had not taken the crimes seriously. By crimes, I mean serious beatings of Jewish people riding public transporation, fire-bombings, and murder. She has been reporting this for several years now.
Tariq Ali a Force to Be Reckoned With
Tariq Ali, a leading Muslims intellectual, was denied entry to the United States based on his ties to terror groups. He is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the precursor to Al-Quaeda (sp.?) He is a force to be reckoned with as shown by the following:
I saw Ali on a recent History Channel production on the Crusades. It was a dhimmi history all right. The producers interviewed English historians of the Crusade and two Arab historians of the crusades.
Tariq Ali wrote a book on the Arab hero Saladin so he was presented as a historian of the Crusades. The History Channel accurately pointed out that Saladin probably murdered his mentor, a king of a medium-sized city-state, and his mentor’s son. Ali mused as follows “Was Saladin ruthless? Probably yes, but you had to be ruthless to survive.” No actually, Saladin chose to be ruthless to gain power and control over territory and to do so, he murdered someone who had virtually adopted him as a son.
At one point Ali acknowledges that Saladin beheaded about 600 Knights Templar and Knights Hospitalier who were his prisoners of war. Ali referred to this act as “shock and awe.” The reference to the American campaign in Iraq. Clever arguments encased in that short reference. Tariq implies that no one can criticize Saladin for the beheadings because after all American supposedly did something similar. [THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE AND DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH, but, HE slips it in so quickly that is quite disarming unless you are very prepared to notice it and to challenge him]
However, when Richard the Lion Hearted beheaded Arab knights, he was referred to as “cruel.” Both actions were cruel by today’s standards but there were probably CUSTOMARY by the standards of the time. Remember the entire idea of “rules of war” which is really an oxymoron, is Western and it developed many centuries later in the Geneva Convention. If Richard I was cruel what was Mohammed when he beheaded ever single male member of the Quayash tribe who were his prisoners? And Mohammed’s example is perfect and worthy of imitation in all respects.
The History Channel allowed Ali to describe violent act committed by Christian armies as “atrocities” and “war-crimes.” This is making the mistake of importing today’s ideas of the rules of war back to the 11th and 12th centuries. However, Tariq Ali presented ruthless and bloody acts by Saladin were accepted as normal for the time period and somehow necessary.
Ali is a very formidable intellectual opponent. He is extremely articulate in English and is a master of propaganda. I am SO RELIEVED that the U.S. Department of State did not let him into the United States. He wanted to establish his viper’s nest in Notre Dame University. This is no accident. It is the leading Roman Catholic University in America and he would have loved to seduce those students away from their Faith, their country and their culture.
What was the net effect? The net effect was to destroy a Western hero. When I was growing up I was taught that Richard the Lion Heart was a hero of England. Now people who see this will believe he was a “war criminal.” This is a very, very insidious form of propaganda. Destroy all the heroes of a culture and there is nothing left to love or be proud of. This is happening all the time. As an adult, I would probably have a more balanced view of Richard I, however, Richard’s attempt to regain the Holy Land for Christianity is no more worthy of blame then the success of the Selucid Turks in taking the Holy Land from the Byzantines.
Even in the Middle Ages, if I were a woman, I would prefer to live under the Christian Byzantines rather than the Islamic Selucid Turks. Our Lord didn’t tell men to beat their wives if they were imperitent or disobedient.
Let is us pray that future State Departments do not let him in. He is truly dangerous.
Correction. Ramadam not Ali barred from U.S.
Argh, I goofed, big time. The author featured in the History Channel presentation was, in fact, Tariq Ali. I confused him with Tariq Ramadam. It was Tariq Ramadam who was denied entry to the United States. Silly and dangerous Joan Krock (heir of the MacDonald’s hamburger fortune) sponsored Ramadam.
Ramadan or Ali. Your assessments of Aliâ??s statements in the documentary were accurate. He was more propaganda than history. I was getting tired of his comment that they (as in Moslems) still talk about them as though, “they were yesterday.” As though this somehow justifies violence today.
Personally I wish they would go beyond the Crusades on discussing the relationship between Western Europe and Islam in documentaries.
Maybe they should delve into the history of the Moslems in India. And see the “benevolence” of the Moghuls to their Hindu subjects. I believe the Hindus still talk about it as though it happened yesterday.
Ali
Yup, Jerry, ol’ Ali was an oily character wasn’t he. He was allowed to attack the character of the Franks and describe them as “barbaric.” The other Arab historian was allowed to use the term “war crimes” with respect to the Christian soldiers. Richard the Lion Heart was described as “cruel.” Arab culture was supposedly so advanced. (Yup, it absorbed the intellectuals of the countries it conquered then claimed that their workproduct was part of the glory of Islamic culture.) My I recommend a book Toby E. Huff, the Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Here is a reference to a very interesting debate between Huff and an Islamic historian by the name of Saliba. http://baheyeldin.com/history/toby-huff-1.html The Western historians of the Crusade did NOT use any negative descriptors of the Arabs, NONE.
Did you note how the History Channel described the conquest of the Byzantine Middle East by the Selucid Turks? There was no discussion of those battles or struggles. You were simply presented with a map with a moving yellow area representing the advancing control of the Turks. I would imagine that belonging to the Christian population after the advance of the Turks must have been hideous. There were probably many people slain and sold into slavery and concubinage.Probably really, really nasty for the women.