The Hammer

[MajGenl.Meade]

The OP here is a veritable turducken of historical ignorance wrapped in magical thinking with a steaming core of retconned bullshit

Yes, but apart from that . . .

[liberty]

Instead of going to prison, they could have been turned into American assets.

Or not; why do you assume they had ties to/knowledge of terrorist organizations? Because of their ethnicity or religion? Or because they were supposedly under FBI surveillance (albeit not that high a priority surveillance since they neither saw the murder or tried to take the parties into custody afterwards; if there were any real evidence or terroristic ties, the agencies might well have cooperated--that they did not makes me think your claism is completely unfounded).

And, FWIW, I don't see all white people, even those who are members of right wing fundamentalist christian churches, as neo nazis or having ties to white supremacy groups. And I don't even see all white supremacy groups, however repugnant their beliefs are, as terroristic or violent. I am willing to give moslems and those of middle eastern/asian descent the same consideration and not lump them all as terrorists. Part of the free speech rights included in the rights I mentioned above. But the terrorist behind every telephone pole (akin to the red menace in the 50s), is a prett easy way to dispense with those rights.

It's a good thing you never worked for a nonexistent company with no name. If you think war is a dirty business, you know nothing by comparison. War is all lightness, sweetness, and candy canes compared to human intelligence gathering. Two of the most useful tools in intelligence are honey traps—both heterosexual and homosexual. In fact, homosexual traps are often more effective in most countries because the trapped individual is less likely to resist.

For example, consider how dirty it can get: the Soviets viewed homosexuality as an abomination that weakened their system. They sent homosexuals to labor camps to be worked to death, killed, raped, or disappeared—they didn't care. Yet, at the same time, they eagerly recruited these individuals to serve as spies in Western countries. That’s hypocrisy of the highest kind, but it was quite effective.
I'm sure we did it too, because in the world of cloak and dagger, there are no nice guys—only survivors. James Bond is just a myth. As I said, it's a truly dirty business, but an essential one. Without it, there could be no America with its freedoms.

[liberty]

I was wondering, during the era of DEI, would a statue of Charles Martel erected in France be considered racist and xenophobic and torn down? Maybe you don’t know who Charles Martel was—he was a Frankish warlord who drove the Muslims out of France and saved Western Europe for Christianity. He was a brilliant military leader, but he was an individual of his time—very brutal, very vicious, and very successful. If someone wanted to erect a statue of him in a Muslim neighborhood as a statement of 'This is France,' would you consider it objectionable? There are already several statues of him across France.

If one stops and considers it, Charles Martel did not only save the Frankish Kingdom (France) and Western Europe but also the Western world. If not for his courage, skill, and abilities, we might be Muslim today, and we would not have the religious tolerance that we now enjoy; we should have statues of him in our countries as well, even in Dearborn, Michigan, to demonstrate to the Islamic residents there that they are now part of the Western world, where religious tolerance is expected.

The OP here is a veritable turducken of historical ignorance wrapped in magical thinking with a steaming core of retconned bullshit. Charles Martel did not "save France" "for Christianity." There was no such thing as France, no concept of a "Western Europe" let alone a nation-state, and the Franks were one of a number of pagan Germanic peoples who themselves had invaded Gaul and were kept at bay by the Romans. With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Europe was a collection of barbarian kingdoms and duchies constantly warring amongst themselves; their adoption of Christianity was still tenuous and politically expedient at best. By the time Charles Martel came around, Europe was firmly in the Dark Ages -- except for al-Andalus, which was a cosmopolitan center of commerce, art, science and philosophy that included Muslims, Christians and Jews in a highly integrated society: Islam was still brand new (Muhammad had died only 100 years earlier) and the Umayyad caliphate in Iberia ruled over a large and very diverse population, necessitating tolerance and inclusion if for no other reason than to avoid internal revolt. Had the Ummah conquered Europe in those early days, we might have been spared a millennium of the Christians' crusades, religious wars, inquisitions, pogroms and witch trials, and Europeans might have had a chance to flourish under an enlightened government rather than wallow in tribalism, superstition and violence.

Will you, comrade, let your hate of the Western world blind you? As far as I'm concerned, you can argue with the historians, but I consider Charles "the Hammer" pivotal to the development of the Western world. His successes led to the establishment of Charlemagne's empire. While you may disagree with them, I want you to consider this point: compare the Western world and its extensions—America and Australia—to the Muslim world. Which is more tolerant, religiously and otherwise? There are not many honor killings in the Western world, including the United States, except perhaps secretly within some Islamic communities.

[Big RR]

Without it, there could be no America with its freedoms.

and there would be no America without its freedoms. I have made my choice; what is yours?

[MajGenl.Meade]

By 'eck, lib's been rereading his Jack Reacher collection.

[Joe Guy]

I stopped reading about Martel and decided I didn't like him after I read that he had a lot of Gaul.

[liberty]

Without it, there could be no America with its freedoms.

and there would be no America without its freedoms. I have made my choice; what is yours?

I made my decision a long time ago. I gave up many of my freedoms for 20 years to ensure the preservation of freedom for all. I would say I’d do it again, except now I’m nearing the end, and I wouldn’t be worth a damn. Soon, I’ll be gone, but I worry about what I will leave behind. You talk a good game, but how much do you really love freedom? Would you give up some of your liberties to preserve it?

[liberty]

I stopped reading about Martel and decided I didn't like him after I read that he had a lot of Gaul.

Well, he did, but we don't know how well he treated them. Charles 'The Hammerman' was, like his contemporaries, a Germanic leader. If we want to get nitpicky, he and his fellow Franks might have treated the local population harshly. We don't know for sure—at least I don’t know. I’ve never come across anything definitive. Historians suspect that the condition of Frankish rule varied depending on the time, place, and leader. However, there’s no indication of it being extremely harsh at any one time, if it ever was. From what I can determine, the locals were relatively submissive. But in the grand scheme of things, you could say they actually 'won' in the end. The Franks adopted elements of their language, customs, and beliefs, merging with the local people to create what we now recognize as the French.

[Big RR]

Would you give up some of your liberties to preserve it?

Dpends what you mean; if you mean being in the military, I served in the army reserve for a number of years and, yes, voluntarily surrendered some of my personal liberties to do that. But if you mean bringing in some sort of strongman or oligarchy government that "temporarily takes away our liberties to protect us, then absolutely not. I will always choose to rely on the law and due process over the whims of any person or group, even if they appear t be benevolent and the danger is real and not manufactured. But I guess it depends on how much you treasure those liberties; I see them as the only reason to preserve the US.

[Burning Petard]

When one becomes a member of the military voluntarily, not a a conscript, one takes an oath to obey all LAWFUL orders and defend the constitution, not the glorious leader, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. So even in the military uniform the private and the General are both constrained by the laws. It never adequate for one in the American military to say 'I was just following orders'. Also, some veterans have noted that oath of enlistment has no expiration date.

I think for 'The Hammer" it was much simpler: Do it or I will kill you.

snailgate.

[Big RR]

So even in the military uniform the private and the General are both constrained by the laws

Indeed they are, but all members do give up some rights to serve--the right to speak ones mind and post on sensitive issues, the right to travel where you want, even the right to choose to no longer associate with the military should you so choose. These are rights you voluntarily surrender to serve (FWIW, you often give up some rights for many things, such as employment and your contract with your employer). But we still are protected by the rule of law.

As for the "oath" having no expiration date, you do have expiration dates on your contractual obligations to the military; not certain which oath obligations you think might survive this expiration. But even if there is no legal obligation, I do think we all as citizens have a moral obligation to protect and defend the constitutition and the rule of law, if for no other reason that it's in our interest to do so.

[Burning Petard]

if for no other reason that it's in our interest to do so.

My freshman Psych 101 professor said if one is truly selfish, they would act as the most unselfish person in the world.

snailgate.

[Sue U]

Will you, comrade, let your hate of the Western world blind you? As far as I'm concerned, you can argue with the historians, but I consider Charles "the Hammer" pivotal to the development of the Western world. His successes led to the establishment of Charlemagne's empire. While you may disagree with them, I want you to consider this point: compare the Western world and its extensions—America and Australia—to the Muslim world. Which is more tolerant, religiously and otherwise? There are not many honor killings in the Western world, including the United States, except perhaps secretly within some Islamic communities.

I don't hate "the Western world." I am a product of it (mostly). But nothing about "the Western world" we see today was either inevitable or necessarily superior to other cultures. Great civilizations have risen and fallen all over this planet during the last 10,000 years, and today's "Western world" will not endure forever (or even much longer, the way things are going). The excessively murderous history of Europe, from the fall of Rome to the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, through the colonial era and right into two "World Wars" is not really something to be admired. We are where we are today because of the accidents of human history, and perspectives on that history certainly vary with cultural values.

Comparing the "the Western world" to "the Muslim world" is nonsensical. There are nearly 1.8 billion Muslims spread around the globe, and dozens of schools of thought within each of the branches of Islam. There is no separate and unitary "Muslim world" nor is there is a separate and unitary "Western world." Some majority-Muslim countries are just as tolerant, if not more so -- "religiously and otherwise" -- than some nominally "Christian" countries (e.g. Indonesia, Tunisia, Lebanon, even Egypt and Morocco). There is plenty of violence against women in "the Western world," especially murders and especially in the U.S. and especially as a function of sexual relationships, but it is not framed as "honor killing," which seems to be mostly for rather bigoted reasons. As a statistical matter, there are "not many honor killings" in "the Muslim world," but more to the point they are not a function of Islam but of local or familial perceptions of sexual "purity," social status or satisfaction of dowry obligations (note that such "honor"-based murders also occur in non-Muslim communities and families in South Asia and elsewhere). The abhorrent "honor"-based violence of some people who may or may not be Muslims is not any more representative of "the Muslim world" than the murder rate in the U.S. is representative of "the Western world" (or "Christendom," since that's your meaning).

[liberty]

Will you, comrade, let your hate of the Western world blind you? As far as I'm concerned, you can argue with the historians, but I consider Charles "the Hammer" pivotal to the development of the Western world. His successes led to the establishment of Charlemagne's empire. While you may disagree with them, I want you to consider this point: compare the Western world and its extensions—America and Australia—to the Muslim world. Which is more tolerant, religiously and otherwise? There are not many honor killings in the Western world, including the United States, except perhaps secretly within some Islamic communities.

I don't hate "the Western world." I am a product of it (mostly). But nothing about "the Western world" we see today was either inevitable or necessarily superior to other cultures. Great civilizations have risen and fallen all over this planet during the last 10,000 years, and today's "Western world" will not endure forever (or even much longer, the way things are going). The excessively murderous history of Europe, from the fall of Rome to the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, through the colonial era and right into two "World Wars" is not really something to be admired. We are where we are today because of the accidents of human history, and perspectives on that history certainly vary with cultural values.

Comparing the "the Western world" to "the Muslim world" is nonsensical. There are nearly 1.8 billion Muslims spread around the globe, and dozens of schools of thought within each of the branches of Islam. There is no separate and unitary "Muslim world" nor is there is a separate and unitary "Western world." Some majority-Muslim countries are just as tolerant, if not more so -- "religiously and otherwise" -- than some nominally "Christian" countries (e.g. Indonesia, Tunisia, Lebanon, even Egypt and Morocco). There is plenty of violence against women in "the Western world," especially murders and especially in the U.S. and especially as a function of sexual relationships, but it is not framed as "honor killing," which seems to be mostly for rather bigoted reasons. As a statistical matter, there are "not many honor killings" in "the Muslim world," but more to the point they are not a function of Islam but of local or familial perceptions of sexual "purity," social status or satisfaction of dowry obligations (note that such "honor"-based murders also occur in non-Muslim communities and families in South Asia and elsewhere). The abhorrent "honor"-based violence of some people who may or may not be Muslims is not any more representative of "the Muslim world" than the murder rate in the U.S. is representative of "the Western world" (or "Christendom," since that's your meaning).

I initially started to agree with the idea of equivalency between the Western and Islamic worlds. After all, there are some admirable aspects of the Islamic world, such as lower crime rates, lower juvenile delinquency rates, lower divorce rates—although I believe this is largely due to the dominance of the husband within marriage—and a generally more disciplined society. However, upon reflection, I came to the conclusion that Western culture is superior, particularly in terms of technology.

The prime reason for our technological advantage is science, which might never have developed if it hadn't been for the printing press—a device that was not widely accepted in the Islamic world for nearly 300 years. This delay was partly due to the printing press not being well-suited to the Islamic script, which was regarded as somewhat sacred. Thus, I believe the Western world owes much of its progress to this pivotal invention. If Charles Martel had not defeated his enemies at the Battle of Tours and bought time for Islamic forces in Spain to fracture, Europe could very well have become Islamic today, and both the printing press and the scientific revolution might never have existed.

That said, I do acknowledge that the Islamic world contributed significantly to technology, with advancements such as alcohol distillation and optics. However, their late adoption of both the printing press and science (some regions still exhibit less scientific thinking today) proved to be a crucial differentiator.

[Burning Petard]

some regions still exhibit less scientific thinking today

Yes I agree, some regions, like Kansas and Oklahoma, have taken active steps to suppress scientific thinking in their schools.

snailgate.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Joe Guy]

[liberty]

You displayed the wrong hammer, which I find interesting since I thought you were a history buff. Charles the man did not build with his hammers; he smashed brain cells. The warhammer looks more like a modern-day sledgehammer, though somewhat smaller, and the handles varied quite a bit. However, I think it's highly unlikely that Charles ever used a hammer himself. He earned his name from his ability to smash his enemies as though pounding them with a hammer.

I think the hammer at that time was probably not popular among his troops. The Warhammer, however, became widely used much later in medieval history when armor became much more robust. Being a noble, Charles likely had access to a sword as his primary weapon. He may have used a small axe as a backup, and some of his troops might have wielded hammers, but I don’t believe it was very common.

[Scooter]

So that's why the village idiot has suddenly developed an interest in Charles Martel:

More recently, the memory of Charles has been appropriated by far right and white nationalist groups, such as the 'Charles Martel Group' in France, and by the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019.

His Nazi comrades have adopted him as a symbol of their movement. A list of some of the terrorist attacks they have carried out in his name:

14 December 1973 - Algerian consulate bombing in Marseille: Bomb attack on the Algerian consulate offices in Marseilles. Four Algerians were killed and 20 injured.

2 March 1975 - Bomb attacks on the Air Algérie offices in Toulouse and Lyon. No one was hurt.

10 April 1975 - Car bomb explodes outside the Algerian consulate in Paris. No one was hurt. Claimed by the Charles Martel group as a protest against the French President's visit to Algeria.

24 December 1976 - The Charles Martel Group claimed responsibility for the assassination of Jean de Broglie in Paris. De Broglie had been one of the negotiators of the Évian Accords which helped end the Algerian War. However, French police alleged that de Broglie's murder was arranged by his financial advisor, Pierre de Varga, in order for de Varga to avoid repaying a debt to de Broglie. De Varga was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his role in the murder.

1 November 1977 - Two Algerians kidnapped in Paris. Claimed as a reprisal for the kidnapping of two French nationals in Mauritania the previous month by the Algerian-backed Polisario Front.

7 May 1980 - Bombing of the North African Moslem Students Association. No one was hurt.

11 May 1980 - Algerian consulate in Aubervilliers bombed. No one was hurt. A handwritten leaflet was left claiming responsibility, and stating that the Charles Martel Group was "against the church, the Jews, the starving of the Third World, and for the white race".

9 August 1983 - Bomb attack on the Air Algérie office in Marseilles. No one was hurt.

30 September 1983 - Marseille exhibition bombing: Bombing of an international fair in Marseille kills one person and injuries 26 others. The blast occurred near the Algerian and American stands. The Charles Martel Group was one of many groups to claim responsibility for the bombing but no arrests are ever made in the case.

January 1987 - Attack on the offices of the magazine Jeune Afrique in Paris.

[MajGenl.Meade]

You displayed the wrong hammer, which I find interesting since I thought you were a history buff.

No, it's the correct hammer. I thought you were a Pink Floyd buff. It symbolizes the march of totalitarian fascism - as exemplified by the current US administration and (presumably) most of your heroes.