[Laissez-faire capitalist]

We need no fanaticism from either side. And saying that nothing but Christian fanaticism would have thrown back the fanatical Muslims is using a conclusionary leap.

[DiogenesLamp]

We need no fanaticism from either side.

That is a very amusing statement. I can think of two quotes right off the bat that demonstrate how silly it is.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

-Leon Trotsky-

.

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived the use of them . . .

--- Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

Honestly, what do you propose to do about the fanaticism from the Islamic side? Negotiate like reasonable men or something? :)

[DiogenesLamp]

You might want to take a look at this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3245869/posts

You will not be left alone by the Islamists.

[DiogenesLamp]

We need no fanaticism from either side.

You're gonna get it from one side whether you want it or not. As Trotsky said: "You may not be interested in war, but war is certainly interested in you."

At the very least you need to match ferocity with ferocity.

And saying that nothing but Christian fanaticism would have thrown back the fanatical Muslims is using a conclusionary leap.

Don't see your point at all. According to what I've seen of the historical record, no other form of fanaticism was available at the time.

I also noticed the point is being made in this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3247228/posts