"No, sometimes the "conquest" part is just a facet. In many cases, although the real estate deals might have been based in conquest, the reality is more complex, and the end result is wealth built (Rome, Britain, Incans, etc) rather than merely pre-existing wealth taken (Mongols, Muslims, etc). I've explained this. "Also, you need to stop thinking of the Arabs at time as an ethnicity with a specific homeland... as explained earlier." No, I don't. YOU need to understand that yes, the Arabs are just another ethnic group, and their origins are Arabia just as the Mongols started in Mongolia, the Berbers in North west Africa, and the Goths in the Baltic area. They did not magically spring from the dust across the Middle East. They launched themselves out from a heartland at a time when we still had Assyrians, Mesopotamians, etc, and conquered and absorbed them to such a degree that many of their descendents today call themselves Arabs. Still, though, the Saudis remind the others who the "real" arabs are every chance they get. There is a reason why, in Arab literature and folklore, the hero is the Beduoin." The history the world as history of races was really hot in begining of 20th century- its passe now. Ethnicities are production of historical processes. It probably expalins why you have such a distorted hold on notion of empires which is sured by many serious scholars. I hope your forthcoming explaination about Al-Aqsa as not being an example of Islamicate archeticutreis going to more rigourous.

Yes there were Muslims in the Persian Bourgoisie, but they were on par in numbers with Christians. The majority of Persian city-folk were Manichists or Mazdakists (-ites?). Persia contributed little or nothing to the Islamic empire until the Abassids, when the formerly Zorroastrian nobility had been assimilated and the Empire stopped relying primarily on Arab Bedouins for their soldiery. Incidentally, I just re-read the preface/introductory essay of the new ed of Rise of the West, and I really didn't see much in reference to new scholarship. There were obligitory sops to the marxian taliban that run academia (cluck-clucking at the eurocentrism and the phallocracy), but he mostly stood by his text. The two major points that he said he would have corrected were mostly organizational - dividing the bronze-age chariot civs from the iron-age "democratic" ones, and giving Sung China pride of place over the steppe conquerors in the period of 1000-1500. I have read Black and wasn't particularly impressed. Parker and McNiell have been read and reread, but Black didn't resonate the same way. I will dig it out and take another look. Any links/specific references on Rogers collection The Military Revolution Debate? .

" Zionism as form of racism does not mean that racism does not have other forms like anti-semetism or Islamophobia." So, Islam is an ethnicity now? Why jump Sarge for his use of Arab when you make a similar charge?.

And here we have an excellent article by Charles Krauthammer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30184-2004Dec2.html Ohhh, I love it when Charles sticks it to them and twists it inside! Here's some other related stuff: http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4700 It's interesting to see the blatant hypocrisy of the Euro crowd, when it comes to differentiating between the need for democracy in Ukraine vs the need for democracy in Iraq.

I am surprised about McNeil- I thought his argument in regard to Sung China was farily important. I am not surprised that he stands by his text- I think its one the best (if not the best world histories- still- though what you call the Marx taliban- I would suggest is probably his recognition of the telology in his work. For its worth Marx was an arch Eurocentrist. Any particular reasons why you found Black- unimpressive?

Sokoi wrote, "Every Friday- in every moseque in Middle mEast majority moseques- what is the source of this informtion? A poll? A survey?" My point was that it was a typical and steady dogma preached to the people -sort of counterbalances the moderate voice that obviously has a hard time speaking out with such regularity and mass appeal. But try for starters. It would be very simple to amass evidence, but start there - those sermons printed are typical fare. Also, "And, at every Friday prayer sermon since then for the last 22 years ,the Islamic Republic of Iran has perpetuated the atmosphere of violence against the United States in the Middle East by chanting the refrain: "Death to America." That's from http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/islam/islam-perversion.html. Here's more: "Shia leaders also said they had a fatwa for waging jihad against the US since in 1979. “Imam Khomeini had issued a fatwa against the US and this fatwa is still valid,” said Hassan Turabi, a Shia leader whose party is aligned to Iran. He said Imam Khomeini had declared the US ‘Shaitan-e-Bozorg’ (the Big Devil) and every last Friday of Ramazan, the Shia community showed their hatred against this evil by holding rallies." from http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-3-2003_pg7_14 etc.... "This is just silly rhetoric. OBL video messages are clear that reasons for attacking Pentagon WTC were do with American policies specifically what they see as the occupation of Saudia Arabia, support for regimes like Mubarak's and of course support for Israel.." This is ridiculous considering that OBL admitted he'd devised the idea to attack the WTC towers as far back as 1981-82. Before that he was a student of M Qutb, brother of S Qutb, the writer who proclaimed America the greater Kufr in 1948 (for its lifestyles -especially the freedom alotted to women). M Qutb taught (in Jiddah) his star pupil that the US is the greater Kufr and needs a jihad just because we were not submitting to Islam. Don't make me have to quote Qutb. The things you mention are just fuel to stoke the already hotly burning anti-US theological fire that was kindled as way back as 1948. "There you go again- the jihad (and would be a non- religous jihad) is claim to be reaction to U.S policies. No you may accept that the policies were/are wrong. Its not about the being of the US but its doing." I denied this explicitly - the jihad is a religious war against the Greater Kufr. And that was a pronouncement by OBL's mentor not because of what we'd done, but just because of who we are. "Are all governments- part of this small 'moderate' voice? Maybe the US is not on the side of the people like in the Cold War but on the side of the regimes?" Like Iran? Yeah right. Perhaps you can attend the Khameini backed "Ten Days of Dawn" terror fest and tell us what that government really thinks? From, among plenty of others, http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/1471 BTW -your little quip hardly touches on the point I made. Perhaps you care to explain the thousands of Muslims cheering for OBL on 9/12? I already have - the ole steady widespread indoctrination of the friday sermon! "Actually being Islamophobe is a hinderence to understanding who the enemy is." I'm afraid that a person of *your* mindset is worse off. Classic case of the dhimmi mentality, but they'd kill you in an instant - it's about time you thanked Bush and the American Forces for keeping you safe. JMAC

Sork - better yet, why don't *you* put your money where your mouth is - find me, well, one Friday sermon from a middle eastern mosque (PA Egypt Saudi Sudan Syria Iran etc...) that advocates *peace* with the US, or Christians, or Israelis. Show us that *this* moderate sentiment far outweighs the militant anti-US sentiment please. By all means...

"I hope your forthcoming explaination about Al-Aqsa as not being an example of Islamicate archeticutreis going to more rigourous." It's been posted for days now. No response from you, I see. I told you, you are out of your league here. You still haven't met my challenge of proving such a thing as "Islamicate Architecture" actually exists by identifying a SINGLE ORIGINAL FEATURE. What's the matter? Stuck? I thought so. You respond to detailed explanations with your sweeping "proclamations of truth" that are presented without explanation. I have no time for such nonsense. After telling me (wrongly) that the arab homeland was in the fertile crescent, you then say ethnic study is Passe? Nonsense. Your words are a bucket of camel snot. All I did was prove you wrong, and you run and cry that the whole subject is obsolete. Hah! If it is Passe, then why did YOU bring it up? You think my theory of empires is wrong? Then provide competing evidence! Instead, your own evidence (Alexander) supports ME, so you run and cry like a wimpering child behind "serious scholars" whom you neither name nor quote nor discuss! Hah! You could be a troll, but you are not annoying enough. You are just a True Beleiver, one who has never heard challenging facts, one who has never before found himself in an argument with someone who can provide a whole post about the Christian architecture of the Dome of the Rock, so instead of arguing back, you cry and hide! Give us some history, or some genuine architectural analyis, or go back to your cave and whimper! I'll give you a ten feature head start: Do not try to pass off any of these things as "Islamic", they were quite popular long before Muhammed began his murderous wars of conquest: Enclosed Garden Repeating Geometric Motif Pillared Arch Peaked Arch Horseshoe Arch Arched Collonade Crenelation Adobe Tile Octogonal Atrium Temple Tower-- oops, that's ELEVEN, you have an even better head start! Sleep well, Sorkoi, and remember, never question the things your Imam has told you. He might kill you if you do.

"There more to racism than identifying people by 'race' as biological category." So that "Muslims Only" purple sign on the highway to Mecca is really, really, really racist, right?

I'm putting on my armor-plated underwear to disagree with Swhitebull here, but... >>Given the fact that OBL never MENTIONED the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his initial missives until after the attack on Afghanistan by US and allied forces. Im sure that was the primary reason. Of course.<< OBL referenced the Israeli vs. Arabs conflict in 1998, before the Al Qaeda attacks on US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in an interview with ABC News... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html Hatred towards Jews and Israel is not a novel concept to Islam in general or Al Qaeda in specific. I wouldn't characterize OBL as specifically pointing at Israel *after* the US began bombing the Taliban in 2001. It's something he's been doing for years. His "United Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," the masturbatory official name of the Al Qaeda terror alliance, was "formed" in 1996.