NationStates Jolt Archive

Arn't people tired of the hypocracy of some of the ignorant Christians who give the whole religion a bad name?


For example, in my Honors 12th Grade English class, some Christian students began to speak out against Islam, they were shocked to discover that the Crusades were not what they had been told.

I informed them of the terrible murders of millions of innocent muslims by the crusaders, killed in the name of god. All thanks to the pope, he didn't like the fact that christians of the european southern lands were converting to Islam, so he started a little war, that created the largest army ever seen at the time.


I mean honestly, PAY ATTENTION IN HISTORY CLASS, YOU DOLTS.


http://www.mrdowling.com/606islam.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html
http://www.kyrene.k12.az.us/schools/brisas/sunda/ma/1kyle.htm
http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/subjects/crusades/crusades.html

Fact of the matter is, this may come to a shock as some, THE CHRISTIANS STARTED IT WITH THE MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF DEFENSELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE CRUSADERS WERE GREEDY MEN WHO KILLED HOPING THAT THE BLOOD SHED WOULD LEAD TO SALVATION.

That is why I cringe whenever I hear the word, "crusade", it is NOT a good word, like holocaust.

Ignorance is everywhere, so is selective hearing.

I agree that the Crusades should not be revered as a great period of history, but you should also note that they happened centuries ago, and must be considered in a context different than the one we use to evaluate contemporary actions.

The Crusades where not only Islam vs Christians. There were several Crusades vs pagans and also against other Christians i.e. Albigensian Crusade and the Crusade against Aragon. I would argue that the begining of Islam Vs Christianity would be when the Turks invaded the Byzantine Empire C. 8th century.

So you're saying people should study history more? Okay, I'm down with that.

But we can't criticize what some stupid people do in the name of Islam because of the things some stupid people did in the name of Christianity 900 years ago? That doesn't make any sense at all.

The crusades are made to be way worse than they were. They were for a good cause, but the people in them did bad things. First off, the crusades were a defensive war. Before the rise of Islam, Syria and N. Africa were very Christian. Then the arab armies swept conquering provinces with the sword and people were pressured to convert. As Christians lost numerous territory, the Arabs made it clear they would harm Europe itself, by attacking Spain and then France, although fortunatly they were beaten at Tours and driven back to Muslim Spain. Now, through all this, Christians did not attack Islam. Then, the Seljuk Turks banned pilrgims form going to Jerusalem. Thats right, they banned helpless pilgrims. This was too much. Christian Europe united under one banner, putting an end to killing in Europe, and went off to free the Holy City from Muslim grasp and also to help their ally the Byzantine Empire who was under constant attack by Arabs. The Crusades were for a noble cause.

However, the crusaders did behave poorly. They killed many innocents in Jerusalem, but guess what? The Knights Templar , who started the massacre, were punished by the church for it! Thats right, the big bad Pope who started the crusades punished the Templars for killing innocents? I bet they never taught you that in school. I bet they also left out how when the Muslims captured Constantinople the killed 60000 innocent civilians and made slaves out of clergy, women, and children and destroyed priceless artifacts. Not nice eh?

The Crusades where not only Islam vs Christians. There were several Crusades vs pagans and also against other Christians i.e. Albigensian Crusade and the Crusade against Aragon. I would argue that the begining of Islam Vs Christianity would be when the Turks invaded the Byzantine Empire C. 8th century.
It was the Arabs who invaded the Byzantines in the 8th c. Also, the Arabs carried out jihads against the pagan Persians, Hindus, and Chinese, the pagan Persians fought the Byzantines, the Christians crusaded against pagan Balts and Slavs, the Muslims also had jihads against each other... Shia vs. Sunni vs. Assassin. This whole time period is full of religious and political upheaval, and no participant in any of these wars, whether Christian, Muslim, or pagan, were innocent of this terrible bloodshed.

It was the Arabs who invaded the Byzantines in the 8th c. Also, the Arabs carried out jihads against the pagan Persians, Hindus, and Chinese, the pagan Persians fought the Byzantines, the Christians crusaded against pagan Balts and Slavs, the Muslims also had jihads against each other... Shia vs. Sunni vs. Assassin. This whole time period is full of religious and political upheaval, and no participant in any of these wars, whether Christian, Muslim, or pagan, were innocent of this terrible bloodshed.


Trust me, it was the Sejuk Turks who invaded to Byzantine Empire, thats why you have Turks living in Turkey and not Arabs. I think that it was the Mamalukes who invaded to southern part of the empire tho.

Ahh... The Byzantine Empire. It might have lasted longer had it not been attacked by Crusaders in the Fourth Crusade.

Ahh... The Byzantine Empire. It might have lasted longer had it not been attacked by Crusaders in the Fourth Crusade.

It was not an official action of the crusades. Pope Innocent III was enraged at this and declared that the crusaders swords were to spill the blood of pagans, not christians.

First off, the crusades were a defensive war. Before the rise of Islam, Syria and N. Africa were very Christian.

Correct, except that the territories were Byzantine; they were not returned to the Empire, and were instead taken over by the Crusaders as their own fiefdoms, where they persecuted local populations.

As Christians lost numerous territory, the Arabs made it clear they would harm Europe itself, by attacking Spain and then France, although fortunatly they were beaten at Tours and driven back to Muslim Spain.

That occurred several centuries before the Crusades (Charles Martel was victorious at Tours in 732/733). As for 'harming Europe', that's a rather subjective judgement that doesn't really hold up completely given the fact that in many respects the Islamic world was actually far more advanced than the European one at the time.

Then, the Seljuk Turks banned pilrgims form going to Jerusalem. Thats right, they banned helpless pilgrims.

No, they did not. That was used as the justification for the first Crusade (though it could easily be argued that such justification was unnecessary).

This was too much. Christian Europe united under one banner, putting an end to killing in Europe, and went off to free the Holy City from Muslim grasp and also to help their ally the Byzantine Empire who was under constant attack by Arabs. The Crusades were for a noble cause.

Nonsense. There were still wars going on both in Europe and the Holy Land between the Crusaders. Rivalries between different orders (Templars and Hospitalliers) and Kings (Richard of England and Philip of France), not to mention between the Franks in the Levant itself (consider, for example, Reynauld de Chatillion) were a major factor in the failings of the Crusades. As for assisting their "Allies", the Byzantines; the Crusaders did more to ensure the end of the Byzantine Empire than they did to help it. Have you not heard of the 4th Crusade, that in a most noble fashion captured the Christian city of Zara, and then captured and sacked Constantinople?

The Knights Templar , who started the massacre, were punished by the church for it! Thats right, the big bad Pope who started the crusades punished the Templars for killing innocents?

Incorrect; the killing was general and not started by the Knights Templar, who were later used as scapegoats for their continuing prosperity and strength, which angered King Philip of France. The pope that ended up condemning the Templars was not the same as the one that started the Crusades (it was over two centuries later, *scratches head*.

I bet they also left out how when the Muslims captured Constantinople the killed 60000 innocent civilians and made slaves out of clergy, women, and children and destroyed priceless artifacts. Not nice eh?

However, you never hear about the massacres of the Cathars in the Iberian peninsula do you? Or the city of Zara, a Christian town under the Hungarian king, that was sacked during the Fourth Crusade? The persecution of Orthodox and Coptic Christians in the Levant? The sack and devastation of Constantinople in 1204, and subsequent division of the Byzantine Empire (an ostensibly allied power) by the Latins? The failure to lift even a finger to save the Byzantines when they faced the Ottomans on their own in 1453? The compounding of this by the failure to follow up on the victory at Lepanto in 1571, which forced the Balkan peoples to bear the brunt of the Turkish advance?

The crusades are made to be way worse than they were. They were for a good cause, but the people in them did bad things. First off, the crusades were a defensive war. Before the rise of Islam, Syria and N. Africa were very Christian. Then the arab armies swept conquering provinces with the sword and people were pressured to convert. As Christians lost numerous territory, the Arabs made it clear they would harm Europe itself, by attacking Spain and then France, although fortunatly they were beaten at Tours and driven back to Muslim Spain. Now, through all this, Christians did not attack Islam. Then, the Seljuk Turks banned pilrgims form going to Jerusalem. Thats right, they banned helpless pilgrims. This was too much. Christian Europe united under one banner, putting an end to killing in Europe, and went off to free the Holy City from Muslim grasp and also to help their ally the Byzantine Empire who was under constant attack by Arabs. The Crusades were for a noble cause.

However, the crusaders did behave poorly. They killed many innocents in Jerusalem, but guess what? The Knights Templar , who started the massacre, were punished by the church for it!Thats right, the big bad Pope who started the crusades punished the Templars for killing innocents? I bet they never taught you that in school.
Actually, the Pope punished the Templars because he wanted their money. THe Knights Templar made a fortune from banking, and the Pope falsely accused them of homosexuality and executed them. The Pope obviously doesn't care about killing innocent lives, because right after the Templars were disbanded, the Catholic Church executed thousands of Cathars - innocent Christians in France who refused to believe in Catholic teachings.

I bet they also left out how when the Muslims captured Constantinople the killed 60000 innocent civilians and made slaves out of clergy, women, and children and destroyed priceless artifacts. Not nice eh?
Your history knowledge is very incomplete... more than 200 years before the Turks sacked Constantinople, the Catholics backstabbed their Greek Christian allies in the Fourth Crusade (AD 1204). Though both the crusaders and Byzantines were Christians, the crusaders tricked the Byzantines, burned Constantinople, and shipped countless pieces of art and treasures back to Italy. Thousands of Greeks were killed in this treachery. One reason that the Turks were able to conquer Byzantium in 1453 was that the Byzantines had already been mortally wounded by fellow Christians. Neither the Christians nor Muslims in this time period were nice guys.

It was not an official action of the crusades. Pope Innocent III was enraged at this and declared that the crusaders swords were to spill the blood of pagans, not christians.

Regardless, it still happened. Of course, by this time, the Byzantine emperors were corrupt, weak, and incompetent... Much like the emperors of Rome in its final days.

I wonder what it would've been like if the Byzantines were Catholics and not Orthodox Christians...

Arn't people tired of the hypocracy of some of the ignorant Christians who give the whole religion a bad name?


For example, in my Honors 12th Grade English class, some Christian students began to speak out against Islam, they were shocked to discover that the Crusades were not what they had been told.

I informed them of the terrible murders of millions of innocent muslims by the crusaders, killed in the name of god. All thanks to the pope, he didn't like the fact that christians of the european southern lands were converting to Islam, so he started a little war, that created the largest army ever seen at the time.


I mean honestly, PAY ATTENTION IN HISTORY CLASS, YOU DOLTS.


http://www.mrdowling.com/606islam.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html
http://www.kyrene.k12.az.us/schools/brisas/sunda/ma/1kyle.htm
http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/subjects/crusades/crusades.html

Fact of the matter is, this may come to a shock as some, THE CHRISTIANS STARTED IT WITH THE MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF DEFENSELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE CRUSADERS WERE GREEDY MEN WHO KILLED HOPING THAT THE BLOOD SHED WOULD LEAD TO SALVATION.

That is why I cringe whenever I hear the word, "crusade", it is NOT a good word, like holocaust.

Crusades was about territory, money, and not about losing followers to converting.

Don't misinform the people.

Crusades are not a good word just like Jihads aren't. But don't misrepresent them either.

Trust me, it was the Sejuk Turks who invaded to Byzantine Empire, thats why you have Turks living in Turkey and not Arabs. I think that it was the Mamalukes who invaded to southern part of the empire tho.
No, the Seljuks did not even exist as a nation until the 11th century.
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/selcuk.htm

The Arabs (not the Mameluks) first conquered Egypt, Syria, and Palestine from Byzantium in the 8th century. For a few centuries after that the BYzantines were able to keep the Muslims out of Turkey. However in AD 1071 the Seljuks destroyed the Byzantine army at Manzikert and conquered eastern ANatolia ( Turkey).

The Mamelukes did not appear in history until the 13th century.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/mameluke.htm

Trust me, it was the Sejuk Turks who invaded to Byzantine Empire, thats why you have Turks living in Turkey and not Arabs. I think that it was the Mamalukes who invaded to southern part of the empire tho.
No. It was the Arabs. And they didn't invade Anatolia but Syria and the southern provinces of the empire. The Seldjuks didn't arrive untill the late 10th/early 11th century. And the mammeluks were Turkish mercenaries.:rolleyes:

The crusades are made to be way worse than they were. They were for a good cause, but the people in them did bad things. First off, the crusades were a defensive war. Before the rise of Islam, Syria and N. Africa were very Christian. Then the arab armies swept conquering provinces with the sword and people were pressured to convert. As Christians lost numerous territory, the Arabs made it clear they would harm Europe itself, by attacking Spain and then France, although fortunatly they were beaten at Tours and driven back to Muslim Spain. Now, through all this, Christians did not attack Islam. Then, the Seljuk Turks banned pilrgims form going to Jerusalem. Thats right, they banned helpless pilgrims. This was too much. Christian Europe united under one banner, putting an end to killing in Europe, and went off to free the Holy City from Muslim grasp and also to help their ally the Byzantine Empire who was under constant attack by Arabs. The Crusades were for a noble cause.

However, the crusaders did behave poorly. They killed many innocents in Jerusalem, but guess what? The Knights Templar , who started the massacre, were punished by the church for it! Thats right, the big bad Pope who started the crusades punished the Templars for killing innocents? I bet they never taught you that in school. I bet they also left out how when the Muslims captured Constantinople the killed 60000 innocent civilians and made slaves out of clergy, women, and children and destroyed priceless artifacts. Not nice eh?


And what about the Pagans who were slaughtered and forced to convert when the Romans spread Christianity about to it's empire, and beyond? Surely they must answer for that?

This can be brought back and forth between Islam and Christianity, but most of the lands taken in the crusade were origonally Pagan or Hebrew.

No, the Seljuks did not even exist as a nation until the 11th century.
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/selcuk.htm

The Arabs (not the Mameluks) first conquered Egypt, Syria, and Palestine from Byzantium in the 8th century. For a few centuries after that the BYzantines were able to keep the Muslims out of Turkey. However in AD 1071 the Seljuks destroyed the Byzantine army at Manzikert and conquered eastern ANatolia ( Turkey).

The Mamelukes did not appear in history until the 13th century.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/mameluke.htm
Aah. Beat me to it.

Actually, the Pope punished the Templars because he wanted their money. THe Knights Templar made a fortune from banking, and the Pope falsely accused them of homosexuality and executed them. The Pope obviously doesn't care about killing innocent lives, because right after the Templars were disbanded, the Catholic Church executed thousands of Cathars - innocent Christians in France who refused to believe in Catholic teachings.
Actually the King of France was the one that wanted their money. But I'm sure the Pope got his fair share of it. Weren't the Cathars decendends of the Templars? I remember hearing something like that.


Your history knowledge is very incomplete... more than 200 years before the Turks sacked Constantinople, the Catholics backstabbed their Greek Christian allies in the Fourth Crusade (AD 1204). Though both the crusaders and Byzantines were Christians, the crusaders tricked the Byzantines, burned Constantinople, and shipped countless pieces of art and treasures back to Italy. Thousands of Greeks were killed in this treachery. One reason that the Turks were able to conquer Byzantium in 1453 was that the Byzantines had already been mortally wounded by fellow Christians. Neither the Christians nor Muslims in this time period were nice guys.
Well, it weren't realy the crusaders who came up with the idea. It were the merchants of Venice. Cause they wanted their main trade competitor out of the way.

Why is it a vent written in the flame of anger gets more level headed and informative responses then a carefully worded neutral one? :D

Either way, I've cooled done, and learned alot. ^^

Actually the King of France was the one that wanted their money. But I'm sure the Pope got his fair share of it. Weren't the Cathars decendends of the Templars? I remember hearing something like that.


Well, it weren't realy the crusaders who came up with the idea. It were the merchants of Venice. Cause they wanted their main trade competitor out of the way.

No, the Cathars were a 'heretical' sect of Christians; if I recall correctly, their beliefs basically could be summed up as declaring that material things were of Satan, and evil. They were against having children (who were material), but were actually fairly popular in the south of France; this, naturally, threatened the Church establishment.

As for the Fourth Crusade, that is largely true, but the leaders of the Crusade went along with it and (once it was over) took a direct hand in giving out Byzantine territories to one another to congratulate themselves. They all saw profit in dismembering the power of the Byzantine Empire, but each had different motives for doing so.

In a somewhat ironic twist, Baldwin I (the first Emperor of the new Latin Empire) only lasted a year himself, before he was captured by the king of Bulgaria after he (Baldwin) tried to put down a Greek revolt in Thrace. It is also quite in the character of the era that the Bulgarians, after devastating the Franks, then turned on their erstwhile Greek allies and wiped them out.

No, the Cathars were a 'heretical' sect of Christians; if I recall correctly, their beliefs basically could be summed up as declaring that material things were of Satan, and evil. They were against having children (who were material), but were actually fairly popular in the south of France; this, naturally, threatened the Church establishment.
I remember a show on discovery about them. In that it was said that they may have been desended from the Templars who survived. And that they were kinda like the European variant of the eastern Zen priests. Then again, not much is realy known about them.


In a somewhat ironic twist, Baldwin I (the first Emperor of the new Latin Empire) only lasted a year himself, before he was captured by the king of Bulgaria after he (Baldwin) tried to put down a Greek revolt in Thrace. It is also quite in the character of the era that the Bulgarians, after devastating the Franks, then turned on their erstwhile Greek allies and wiped them out.
Devestating the Franks? As far as I know they never fought the Franks. Unless you mean the cursaders of the Latin Empire.

Arn't people tired of the hypocracy of some of the ignorant Christians who give the whole religion a bad name?


For example, in my Honors 12th Grade English class, some Christian students began to speak out against Islam, they were shocked to discover that the Crusades were not what they had been told.

I informed them of the terrible murders of millions of innocent muslims by the crusaders, killed in the name of god. All thanks to the pope, he didn't like the fact that christians of the european southern lands were converting to Islam, so he started a little war, that created the largest army ever seen at the time.


I mean honestly, PAY ATTENTION IN HISTORY CLASS, YOU DOLTS.


http://www.mrdowling.com/606islam.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html
http://www.kyrene.k12.az.us/schools/brisas/sunda/ma/1kyle.htm
http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/subjects/crusades/crusades.html

Fact of the matter is, this may come to a shock as some, THE CHRISTIANS STARTED IT WITH THE MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF DEFENSELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE CRUSADERS WERE GREEDY MEN WHO KILLED HOPING THAT THE BLOOD SHED WOULD LEAD TO SALVATION.

That is why I cringe whenever I hear the word, "crusade", it is NOT a good word, like holocaust.
You must have no subjective thought process, you believe anything that the self haters tell you. It's simply not true, just because some professors wrote it. I could find plenty of references that are not in agreeance with your warped ideas.

Arn't people tired of the hypocracy of some of the ignorant Christians who give the whole religion a bad name?


For example, in my Honors 12th Grade English class, some Christian students began to speak out against Islam, they were shocked to discover that the Crusades were not what they had been told.

I informed them of the terrible murders of millions of innocent muslims by the crusaders, killed in the name of god. All thanks to the pope, he didn't like the fact that christians of the european southern lands were converting to Islam, so he started a little war, that created the largest army ever seen at the time.


I mean honestly, PAY ATTENTION IN HISTORY CLASS, YOU DOLTS.


http://www.mrdowling.com/606islam.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html
http://www.kyrene.k12.az.us/schools/brisas/sunda/ma/1kyle.htm
http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/subjects/crusades/crusades.html

Fact of the matter is, this may come to a shock as some, THE CHRISTIANS STARTED IT WITH THE MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF DEFENSELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE CRUSADERS WERE GREEDY MEN WHO KILLED HOPING THAT THE BLOOD SHED WOULD LEAD TO SALVATION.

That is why I cringe whenever I hear the word, "crusade", it is NOT a good word, like holocaust.
:rolleyes: And what were the Arabs who invaded Spain and France? Tourists on a souvenir shopping tour?

I remember a show on discovery about them. In that it was said that they may have been desended from the Templars who survived. And that they were kinda like the European variant of the eastern Zen priests. Then again, not much is realy known about them.


Devestating the Franks? As far as I know they never fought the Franks. Unless you mean the cursaders of the Latin Empire.

I have actually heard that as well about the Cathar/Templar link, but from what I have read/know, I don't believe it's true; the Cathars were around for a long time far from the origins of the Templars, so they wouldn't have been descendants. In addition, Cathar philosophy clashes with the Templar militarism, when you think about it. Then again, I wasn't around then, so...

As for the Franks, I apologize, I'm referring to the "Franks" as the general term often used to describe "Western Crusaders". I did mean the crusaders of the Latin Empire, who were defeated by the Bulgarians at the Battle of Adrianople (the second time a powerful Emperor was severely defeated there, the other being Valens in 378).

And what about the Pagans who were slaughtered and forced to convert when the Romans spread Christianity about to it's empire, and beyond? Surely they must answer for that?

This can be brought back and forth between Islam and Christianity, but most of the lands taken in the crusade were origonally Pagan or Hebrew.
Pagans were not slaughtered, they were converted, most of them anyway. A few of them have obviously found their way to this forum.

As for the Franks, I apologize, I'm referring to the "Franks" as the general term often used to describe "Western Crusaders". I did mean the crusaders of the Latin Empire, who were defeated by the Bulgarians at the Battle of Adrianople (the second time a powerful Emperor was severely defeated there, the other being Valens in 378).
Yeah. Kinda ironic when you think about it.

Are you all absolutely sure that the evil bush administration didn't send someone back in time to start the crusades. Surely there must be some way to blame this on the all powerful americans.

Are you all absolutely sure that the evil bush administration didn't send someone back in time to start the crusades. Surely there must be some way to blame this on the all powerful americans.
Now that you mention it.....

Are you all absolutely sure that the evil bush administration didn't send someone back in time to start the crusades. Surely there must be some way to blame this on the all powerful americans.

well,we can blame america for the actions of rome,as america inherited its legacy.therefore,the existanse of catholics is americas fault.and catholics caused all this bloodshed.

well,we can blame america for the actions of rome,as america inherited its legacy.therefore,the existanse of catholics is americas fault.and catholics caused all this bloodshed.

Way to be a bigot. Its always "Blame the Catholics!" You realize us Catholics have been an oppressed minority in the US right?

Way to be a bigot. Its always "Blame the Catholics!" You realize us Catholics have been an oppressed minority in the US right?
Err, nowhere near as oppressed, as, for instance, transsexuals, or gays, or in the past, african-americans.

You want to know what I think is remarkably ignorant?

Someone talking about historical events without putting them into the proper context. I'm talking about you Nikoko. This what people like yourself do when you talk about the Crusades and demonize the Western world. In fact, you are taking a remarkably arrogant and eurocentric approach in doing so. It also demonstrates an alarming amount of ignorance as to the thinking, philosophy, and activities of early and medieval Islam.

The Crusades were a reaction. Not a violent unprovoked action.

Islam was expanding, very rapidly I might add, through conquest. Conquest encouraged by the Islamic principle of Jihad.

It spread that way by massacring Jews and coptic Christians throughout the Middle East. They crossed the Med and subjugated the Christians in Spain, and they proceeded to try to cross the Pyrenees into France, where they were finally stopped by Charles "the Hammer of the Franks" Martel. With the exception of Spain (where they taxed the hell out of non-Muslims), Jihadis left their newly conquered people with one choice, submit and convert, or die. If they were lucky they might only kill the men, then rape the women and sell them and the children into slavery.

Now the Pope at the time, seeing this and realizing that the Western world was constantly on the defensive, decided to call for his own version of a Jihad, the Crusade, and take the fight to the enemies backyard.

Guess what, it worked. The European mainland remained relatively free of aggression while the Saracens tried to fend of the Europeans. It remained that way until the Ottoman Turks (another incredibly aggressive Muslim entity) became a threat some centuries later. The let up in pressure allowed the Spainards to fight the Reconquista and earn back their freedom.

You are living proof of the phrase, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Here's a little something for you to try. Stop reading crap on the internet and pick up a book called, "Jihad" by Paul Fregosi. It chronicles Islams relationship with the western world from it's beginnings.

You want to know what I think is remarkably ignorant?

Someone talking about historical events without putting them into the proper context. I'm talking about you Nikoko. This what people like yourself do when you talk about the Crusades and demonize the Western world. In fact, you are taking a remarkably arrogant and eurocentric approach in doing so. It also demonstrates an alarming amount of ignorance as to the thinking, philosophy, and activities of early and medieval Islam.

The Crusades were a reaction. Not a violent unprovoked action.

Islam was expanding, very rapidly I might add, through conquest. Conquest encouraged by the Islamic principle of Jihad.

It spread that way by massacring Jews and coptic Christians throughout the Middle East. They crossed the Med and subjugated the Christians in Spain, and they proceeded to try to cross the Pyrenees into France, where they were finally stopped by Charles "the Hammer of the Franks" Martel. With the exception of Spain (where they taxed the hell out of non-Muslims), Jihadis left their newly conquered people with one choice, submit and convert, or die. If they were lucky they might only kill the men, then rape the women and sell them and the children into slavery.

Now the Pope at the time, seeing this and realizing that the Western world was constantly on the defensive, decided to call for his own version of a Jihad, the Crusade, and take the fight to the enemies backyard.

Guess what, it worked. The European mainland remained relatively free of aggression while the Saracens tried to fend of the Europeans. It remained that way until the Ottoman Turks (another incredibly aggressive Muslim entity) became a threat some centuries later. The let up in pressure allowed the Spainards to fight the Reconquista and earn back their freedom.

You are living proof of the phrase, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Here's a little something for you to try. Stop reading crap on the internet and pick up a book called, "Jihad" by Paul Fregosi. It chronicles Islams relationship with the western world from it's beginnings.

LOL, smells like somebody just got OWNED!

most religions are aggressive because they are human religions.
Humans can make the most paceful sentiments into reasons for warfare. What is terrifying is that 900 years ago people were ignorant, they had the excuse to believe in "good" and "evil". Now that Bush has twisted the middle east peace process into the battle for middle earth it looks like humanity has come nowhere since the knights templar!

Nothing?

I guess this doesn't fit into everyone's "the West is always evil" world view.

The Golden Coil, I will do, what I wish so many of my former debaters had done when they were in my position.

I concede.

You Sir, Have owned me.

Good game, Sir. GG.

Edit: No sarcasm intended, seriously. Nice ownage.

I also hope this proves that I'm not as ignorant as you first made me out to be, above all, I view the three greatest words ever to be "I was wrong".

Golden, did the book cover the battle of Lepanto?

See now I always thought the Crusades were more about European rulers wanting something to do with their increasingly-powerful noblemen not having loads to do but, say, plot revolt against their leaders? So, why not send them off on a 'holy' war? Gets them out of the way, kills some of them off, promotes national unity and possibly nets some land and money in the bargain (history is always, always about money. Mark my words.)

The Crusades were war, and war is rarely, if ever, a good thing. Even in the best case it's a necessary evil. But everyone involved is dead many times over, so I'm thinking it's one of those occasions where 'get over it' might be appropriate. Holding grudges about things that none of us can control or had any part in is a bit silly, in my opinion.

Besides, as with all history, none of us can say what good or evil could have arisen from things being different. For all their evils the Crusades did provide a lot of cross-cultural links in terms of artistic movements, inventions, language and so forth.

I think I had a point but my train of thought derailed. Authorities fear there are no survivors from the wreckage. :p

This is why I love history. People sit in a circle, accusing everyone else of doing horrible things. Then when everyone is out of breath; you take tally of all the crap that people did to one another and realize that sh*t happens, and we're all more or less equal in our nasty behavior.

Then, you try to figure out why each individual instance of nastiness happened; and assign motives (blame) as needed. Wash hands, repeat.

The Golden Coil, I will do, what I wish so many of my former debaters had done when they were in my position.

I concede.

You Sir, Have owned me.

Good game, Sir. GG.

Edit: No sarcasm intended, seriously. Nice ownage.

I also hope this proves that I'm not as ignorant as you first made me out to be, above all, I view the three greatest words ever to be "I was wrong".

I'm impressed. Seriously, check the book out. It's interesting reading.

Golden, did the book cover the battle of Lepanto?

It did. It covers all of it from the days of Mohammed up till the first World Trade Center attack.

It actually spends less time on the Crusades, since there is already a wealth of material available on the subject.

I found the sections on Bosnia and Kosovo particularly interesting given what was going on there in the 90's. It goes into the roots of that hatred as well.

People don't realize how many times Europe came close to being Muslim. The Moors and the Ottoman Turks came ridiculously close to conquest of the area a number of times. The Ottomans getting as far as Vienna before they were defeated by King John Sobieski.

It did. It covers all of it from the days of Mohammed up till the first World Trade Center attack.

It actually spends less time on the Crusades, since there is already a wealth of material available on the subject.

I found the sections on Bosnia and Kosovo particularly interesting given what was going on there in the 90's. It goes into the roots of that hatred as well.

People don't realize how many times Europe came close to being Muslim. The Moors and the Ottoman Turks came ridiculously close to conquest of the area a number of times. The Ottomans getting as far as Vienna before they were defeated by King John Sobieski.

The Mongols came ridiculously close to going to Paris.
They also were responsible for the fall of the Caliphate, and were it not for the Mamluks, they would have conquered Islam as well.

See now I always thought the Crusades were more about European rulers wanting something to do with their increasingly-powerful noblemen not having loads to do but, say, plot revolt against their leaders? So, why not send them off on a 'holy' war? Gets them out of the way, kills some of them off, promotes national unity and possibly nets some land and money in the bargain (history is always, always about money. Mark my words.)

That was a happy side effect that lead to a stronger more unified Europe.

I'm not making excuses for atrocities that the Crusaders may have committed (although in truth they were no more brutal than their Saracen counterparts). I merely saying that this view of the middle eastern Crusades being driven out of a lust for conquest is wrong. People underestimate the threat the Muslims represented to the West at the time.

Religion has been used as an excuse to commit violence since it began. One of the reasons I'm agnostic. Both muslims and christians converted pepole by the sword, in spite of the New Testament saying something against it. ( The Old Testament said the opposite) Anyone remember Charlemagne slaughtering the pagans. This was long before the crusades. The muslims were actually more tolerant than christians by the time of the crusades. It was an intolerant time all around. Though the forum may get may get ugly at times, at least people just call each other names insead of killing each other. Though there are people I think are dumbasses, there aren't any people I'd actually harm.

The Crusades were as much a religious war as the Second World War was a war of ideologies. Religion/Ideology did not start either conflicts. Both sides had conflicting ideologies (Free capitalism/Facisim and Christianity/Islam) but were content to live along side one another. Its only when one side attacked the others territiory that the war began. The Crusades were not an attempt to go around destroying all the Mulims in the world. It was territorial primarly.

The Mongols came ridiculously close to going to Paris.
They also were responsible for the fall of the Caliphate, and were it not for the Mamluks, they would have conquered Islam as well.

True, but my focus is on Islam's relationship with the West.

The world doesn't have to worry about Mongols deploying suicide bombers or engaging in terror campaigns in this day and age.

True, but my focus is on Islam's relationship with the West.

The world doesn't have to worry about Mongols deploying suicide bombers or engaging in terror campaigns in this day and age.

It's just that in some of his writings, Osama is genuinely upset about the fall of the Caliphate - and apparently, someone is going to pay for that.

Not the US, but...

The Crusades were as much a religious war as the Second World War was a war of ideologies. Religion/Ideology did not start either conflicts. Both sides had conflicting ideologies (Free capitalism/Facisim and Christianity/Islam) but were content to live along side one another. Its only when one side attacked the others territiory that the war began. The Crusades were not an attempt to go around destroying all the Mulims in the world. It was territorial primarly.
To the leaders it was, but to the common folk it was ideology/religion.

To the leaders it was, but to the common folk it was ideology/religion.

I think the Common folk of France during WW2 thought it was a territorial war. Along with the common folk of Spain under the Muslim rule.

I think the Common folk of France during WW2 thought it was a territorial war. Along with the common folk of Spain under the Muslim rule.
Interestingly my grandfather was a middle-class Dutchman in occupied Netherlands and he felt the war was one of ideology.