The Crusades
 

Just watched the first two episodes of a series of five on the crusades. A facinating documentary. Okay, naybe not a documentary, but a facinating story told as documentary.

The atrocities that are attributed to the Catholics are shocking. Slaughter of entire cities and subsequent eating of the dead. Children put on spits and roasted, etc. Many millions of people killed (mostly islamic) in the name of religious cleansing.

All started by a pope that waived the commandment of thou shall not murder if the victim is of Islam. Telling soldiers that all sins will be forgiven if they go on the crusade to take back the holy city and kill as many infidels as possible.

Nice stuff this religion.

Not a related topic, but a guy named Tariq Ali was featured, doing alot of the background fill. I did some googling and found this quote from him:

" (the) massacre of civilian populations was always an integral part of US warmaking strategy"

How fair or unfair is this?

Tuco.

Re: The Crusades
 

I saw several episodes of the Cross and the Crescent on TV. The Crusades were indeed overdone and contained many atrocities.

The historical context that led to the crusades, however, should not be forgotten: Muslim armies forcibly speading Islam over ever-growing swathes of forcibly conquered lands. Islam was subjugating the infidels by force in a very aggressive manner over centuries. Islam had a long history of violent conquest and of gaining land through war, and subsequently subjugating all non-Muslims in those regions.

The first Crusade was, in my opinion, a good idea in order to drive the aggressive, supremacist, religio-fascist, bent-on-conquering foe back from whence they came. My view is that once that was accomplished to a significant degree, as it was in the First Crusade, the latter crusades had far less justification. Of course some of the atrocities were indeed horrible (not saying two wrongs make a right, but Islamic armies committed horrid atrocities too).

[excerpt]"Islam originated in Arabia in the seventh century. At that time Egypt, Libya, and all of North Africa were Christian, and had been so for hundreds of years. So were Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Asia Minor. But then Muhammad and his Muslim armies arose out of the desert, and -- as most modern textbooks would put it -- these lands became Muslim. But in fact the transition was cataclysmic. Muslims won these lands by conquest and, in obedience to the words of the Koran and the Prophet, put to the sword the infidels therein who refused to submit to the new Islamic regime. Those who remained alive lived in humiliating second-class status.

Clinton may be right that Muslims still seethe about the sack of Jerusalem, but he and they are strangely silent about similar behavior on the Muslim side. In those days, invading armies were considered to be entitled to sack cities that resisted them. On May 29, 1453, Constantinople, the jewel of Christendom, finally fell to an overwhelming Muslim force after weeks of resistance by a small band of valiant Greeks. According to the great historian of the Crusades Steven Runciman, the Muslim soldiers "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit."

The first Crusade was called because Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being molested by Muslims and prevented from reaching the holy places. Some were killed. "The Crusade," noted the historian Bernard Lewis, "was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war -- to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage."[end excerpt]

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6959

So you see there are two sides to nearly everything, and there were reasons for the First Crusade.

Re: The Crusades
 

I am a little mad at the Muslims for burning the Alexandria Library. Who knows what great literary and theatrical works were lost forever. Now we are stuck with Oedipus and the Iliad. I bet Sophocles wrote some kick ass stuff that didn't survive.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Slaughter of entire cities and subsequent eating of the dead. Children put on spits and roasted, etc. Many millions of people killed (mostly islamic) in the name of religious cleansing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Many Christian atrocities? Absolutely. But the claim of "many millions of people" is patently ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
" (the) massacre of civilian populations was always an integral part of US warmaking strategy"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now we can figure out the agenda of the manufacturers of the above patently ridiculous claim. For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]

Nice stuff this religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least it's clear what your motives are for this post.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you see there are two sides to nearly everything, and there were reasons for the First Crusade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don'cha just hate that?

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Muslim armies forcibly speading Islam over ever-growing swathes of forcibly conquered lands. Islam was subjugating the infidels by force in a very aggressive manner over centuries. Islam had a long history of violent conquest and of gaining land through war, and subsequently subjugating all non-Muslims in those regions.


[/ QUOTE ]

They kind of skipped this in the series. The only thing mentioned was that Jerusalem had been muslim for 400 years.

[ QUOTE ]
The first Crusade was, in my opinion, a good idea in order to drive the aggressive, supremacist, religio-fascist, bent-on-conquering foe back from whence they came.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of the first crusade (according to the series) was to take back Jerusalem and kill as many muslims as possible. I don't really see how this can be called a good idea. The pope made it clear that killing the enemy would cleanse the soldiers' sins.

Wish they would do a series on how the muslims ruled so I wouldn't have to now do a bunch of readin'.

Tuco.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Japan was the only instance I could think of as well. "integral part" of strategy seems very unfair.

Tuco.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
At least it's clear what your motives are for this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

If BigMacs were slaughtering thousands of people, I would have said "nice stuff. that special sauce"

It was a comment on the worst part of the history of the institution of religion, not my overall opinion.

Thank you for assuming, though.

Tuco.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]

It was a comment on the worst part of the history of the institution of religion, not my overall opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were the case, you wouldn't have made an indictment of organized religion as a whole, which, in your statment, you did.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]



The idea of the first crusade (according to the series) was to take back Jerusalem and kill as many muslims as possible. I don't really see how this can be called a good idea. The pope made it clear that killing the enemy would cleanse the soldiers' sins.



[/ QUOTE ] Yes, taking back Jerusalem was a large part of it; driving the Muslim aggressors out of Spain was another part of the whole scenario; there was a lot to the whole picture, more than we have written, and more than the series covered. That said, I thought the series was well produced overall, though I wish they had not neglected to include much on the greater background before the Crusades, which led up to the Crusades. The Crusades in a vacuum look simply awful, but as a belated response to centuries of Muslim conquest by the sword, and the subjugation of non-Muslims, the Crusades are at least somewhat more understandable, although undeniably barbaric in some aspects.

Re: The Crusades
 

I hate islam. Its a forced religion. Most muslims can't don't even read the Koran. If you are born in Pakistan, you are probably not going to understand Arabic so how in the hell can you read the Koran and say that you understand the religion. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb....

Indy

Re: The Crusades
 

The same can apply to christianity, especially pre-Vatican 2.

[ QUOTE ]

I hate christianity . Its a forced religion. Most christians can't don't even read the Bible. If you are a Christian anywhere, you are probably not going to understand Latin so how in the hell can you read the Bible and say that you understand the religion. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb....

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

So don't make it seem like this is something unique Islam.

MMMMMM weighs in ...on Religious Wars
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Crusades were overdone.

[/ QUOTE ] Oh Jesus. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The historical context ... should not be forgotten: Christian armies forcibly speading Christianity over ever-growing swathes of forcibly conquered lands. The Christians were subjugating the infidels by force in a very aggressive manner over centuries. Christianity had a long history of violent conquest and of gaining land through war, and subsequently subjugating all non-Christians in those regions.

[/ QUOTE ]Fixed your post!

And let me know if you find something wrong with my fixing, so's we can have a laugh with your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
The first Crusade was, in my opinion, a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ] This only shows how ignorant you are of History. I'm sorry but there's no other way of putting it.

The First Crusade's army was populated mostly by tens of thousands of commoners who lacked any war-making experience and who were in it to get wealthy. The Pope who started the frenzy was explicitly promising that "robbers will be turned to barons" (see Urban's sermon in Clermont, France). It was a power grab with a lot of ideological (xenophobic and intolerant) propaganda thrown to the masses.

The logistics of moving 100,00 people across Europe were staggering. The Crusaders were attacked almost everywhere they passed through - and understandably too, since they wanted food and amenities which the locals were not too eager to provide for free or on the cheap! When the first wave of the peasant crusaders arrived, they were duly massacred by the organised army of Turks.

Notably, the First Crusade caused the unleashing of the first wave of anti-Semitic massacres in Christian Europe (see, inter alia, the "First Holocaust" by ...German knights), since many people chose to fight (i.e. murder) the "infidels" at home rather than travel thousands of miles to do so!

Finally, the First Crusade weakened the Christian Byzantine empire (although the Byzantines had a hand in causing it!) and antagonized further the two Christian Churches, thus enabling Constantinople's later fall from power -- and Islam's subsequent advance until the gates of Vienna!

...Yeah, a brilliant idea that Crusade, no doubt about it. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
"The historical context that led to the crusades, however, should not be forgotten: Muslim armies forcibly speading Islam over ever-growing swathes of forcibly conquered lands."

[/ QUOTE ]
The first crusade (1096) had nothing to do with the spread of Islam over new territories, which had been more or less halted more than 350 years prior when Christians checked the Arabs at the battles of Constantinople (718) and Tours (732).

The first crusdade was instigated by the request of the Byzantine Emperor to the Pope for assistance in checking the threat of the (only nominally Muslim) Seljuk Turks. Because the crusaders were ambivalent about the eastern church and had their own agenda, the Turks were ignored as Frankish knights undertook their own agenda of stealing land by murder in the traditional western manner, from Alexander to the current day. As for driving the victims "back from whence they came," virtually all of them came from the land where they were slaughtered.

Your unbelievable ignorance of basic historic fact, your preference for rightist propoganda organs when plenty of objective sources are available, and your appalling double standards are all indicative of your fundamentally racist mindset. I don't know how many times you've slammed affirmative action against American whites on the grounds the they had "nothing to do with" the offense for which they are being held accountable and that any such notion of collective responsibility to future generations is an example of "racism." But when it comes to non-whites, Muslims and other "others", you constantly demand punishment on the grounds of collective guilt and group vengence to justify conquest, torture and murder of indisputable innocents and their children by the millions.

Re: The Crusades
 

Your diatribe aside, Chris, it is a fact that Mohammad and his armies, and later Muslim armies, spread Islam BY THE SWORD, and took entire regions under their totalitarian control via sheer military conquest coupled with institutionalized politico-religio-fascisim.

Do you think that is "OK", or that the Westerners had no business eventually driving back the Muslim conquistadores, and their totalitarian system? Northern Africa, parts of Spain, and other regions, including the area around Jerusalem, had been systematically put to the sword and conquered by Mohammad's armies and followers. Mohammed promised his warriors booty in this world and paradise in the next. Well, at least they got the booty. Quite a religion, eh?--and quite the way to raise and maintain an army.

Non-Muslims living under Islamic rule, if they would not convert to Islam, were either forced into subservience and second-class status under Islam or put to the sword.

By the way, I'm not demanding "punishment" of anyone--I don't know where you got that from; I don't even really believe in the concept of "punishment"--I'm simply against all forms of totalitarianism (WHICH ISLAM IS) and against all forms of fascism--especially those spread by force. Islam fit both bills, and in my view it was correct for the West to try to push back the invading relio-fascism, and its armies, to from whence they came.

I don't care WHOSE religion it is, or WHAT color anyone's skin is: I'm JUST AGAINST FASCIST TOTALITARIANISM. And that is precisely what Islam is, blended with a strong religious component. And the West was right in trying to push back against the speading religio-fascism of Islam. That doesn't mean they always went about it ideally; but in principle, FASCISM, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE, SHOULD ALWAYS BE RESISTED. PERIOD.

Re: MMMMMM weighs in ...on Religious Wars
 

Cyrus, many Christians did bad things and especially in war, HOWEVER, Jesus did not call for making slaughter on the enemy and forcibly subjugating them: Mohammed did. Jesus did not advocate forced conversion or death of infidels: Mohammed did. Jesus did not resist even his own tormentors and executioners, and called for forgiveness and turning the other cheek: Mohammed led many military campaigns of conquest; took slaves; killed the enemy and forcibly took their wives as his slave-concubines; and encouraged his soldiers with rights of booty and plunder. Which do you think is the more aggressive and totalitarian religion, at heart? Which do you think is the warlike religion, in itself (irrespective of the perverse acts of its followers)?

Mohammad oversaw the slaughter of 600 helpless Jews at Medina, after accepting their surrender. Most of the Middle East was forcibly taken by the followers of the warrior-prophet, and fascistic regulations were thereafter decreed. The loathsome laws of Islam continue to this day in many countries: laws which deny non-Muslims equal civil rights; laws which make a non-Muslim's word in court legally equal to only a fraction of a Muslim's word in court; and laws which grossly deny women anything even approaching equal rights. Yes, Christians have done evil things too; but why do you stick up for the side of greater evil, of greater fascism, of greater totalitarianism?

If you love freedom and hate totalitarianism, you must despise the utter authority of Islamic totalitarianism, which seeks to regulate every aspect of mankind's existence on this globe.

Many of the Christians did not understand that Jesus preached non-violence. Hence, they, too, did much evil in the name of religion. But the founder of their religion did not advocate and lead them on in such violent and evil conquests, whereas the founder and leader of Islam most definitely did lead Muslims in such manner.

Re: The Crusades
 

It is almost always a mistake to judge characters and events in history using modern standards of morality. I will let others elaborate.

Re: The Crusades
 

I take your refusal to address my proof of your racism as tacit agreement with my position.

The rest is all silly fantasy and hypocrisy. Of course I've never said anything suggesting that it's "OK" to advance religion by arms -- you are the one explicitly defending that, or have you forgotten what you just wrote? The only clash I see with anything I've said is your silly quibble about whether killing people amounts to "punishment."

The rest of your post is more of the same unvelievable ignorance. At the time of the Crusdades, Islamic Spain was the most cosmopolitan, educated, and ethnically tolerant society in Europe. Your libel of this monument of Western civilization on the spurious grounds of opposing to "fascist totalitarianism . . . precisely what Islam is" is further proof of your unrepentant bigotry.

Re: MMMMMM weighs in ...on Religious Wars
 

[ QUOTE ]
This only shows how ignorant you are...

[/ QUOTE ]


Ever worry about falling off that perch you sit upon?

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]

Nice stuff this religion.

[/ QUOTE ]


This remark certainly does eliminate any doubt as to your open-mindedness.

Re: The Crusades
 

"Northern Africa, parts of Spain, and other regions, including the area around Jerusalem, had been systematically put to the sword",

No, they hadn't.

Talking about fascism and totalitarianism 1400 years before they emerged in the 20th century is ridiculous.

Re: The Crusades
 

Nicky, Islam has always been a totalitarian system, and Mohammad and his armies spread it by the sword.

Perch
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ever worry about falling off that perch you sit upon?

[/ QUOTE ] You object to my calling out MMMMMM's profound ignorance of History?

How else are we supposed to call it? Here he claims that the slaughters by Christians were due mainly to a ..misunderstanding!

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The Crux
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was correct for the West to try to push back the invading relio-fascism, and its armies, to from whence they came.

[/ QUOTE ] And Nut4Dawgs dares to whine about my high perch!

"Where they came"?! You tell us "where they came"! Should be interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I'm not demanding "punishment" of anyone.

[/ QUOTE ] You advocated the collective punishment of innocents and you have recommended mass retaliation against civilian populations -- in this very page. Either you forget easily or you think we do. (I don't.)

[ QUOTE ]
FASCISM, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE, SHOULD ALWAYS BE RESISTED. PERIOD.

[/ QUOTE ] Your ideas, such as sampled above regarding punishment of innocents, are quite close to totalitarianism, actually, although I'm sure you are blissfully unaware of it.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your libel of this monument of Western civilization on the spurious grounds of opposing to "fascist totalitarianism . . . precisely what Islam is" is further proof of your unrepentant bigotry.

[/ QUOTE ]

And also, of course, proof of why circular logic is such an easily recognizable fallacy:



"<font color="red">Why were 11th century Islamic states so bad?</font> ”

“<font color="green">Because they were totalitarian and fascist</font> ”

“<font color="red">Why were they totalitarian and fascist?</font> ”

“<font color="green">Because they were Islamic</font> ”

“<font color="red">But what’s so bad about Islamic states?</font> ”

“<font color="green">They’re inherently totalitarian and fascist</font> ”

“<font color="red">But why are Islamic states so inherently totalitarian and fascist?</font> ”

“<font color="green">Because they’re Islamic</font> ”

-----------------------

You'll notice our friend in green is caught red-handed using this type of fallacious logic.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
I take your refusal to address my proof of your racism as tacit agreement with my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris, we've argued about this before, and I categorically denied (and still deny) deny any form of racist ideology on my part. Moreover, YOU KNOW THAT I DO, and you know that such relentless accusations on your part, which I grew weary of endlessly rebutting, are the very reason I had you on ignore for so long. Therefore, you are herewith being UTTERLY disingenuous when you claim that you take my silence as tacit approval. You absolutely know better, and it is dishonesty like this that makes me seriously question your motives.

You know little of Islamic ideology, or of what the Koran says, or what Mohammed did and said, if you think ancient areas under Islam--including Spain--were not under a form of religio-fascistic control, a type of totalitarianism, as it were. Hey, and guess what? Today, most areas under Islam *still* are under a form of totalitarian control--a religio-political form--as you easily can see, looking at various Islamic countries around the world.

Guess what, Chris? It isn't "bigoted" to speak the TRUTH. And the truth is that Islam has always been an absolutist ideology. As Ibn Warraq says, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

I think you ought perhaps to read some Orianna Fallaci or Robert Spencer--unless perhaps the only freedoms you care about are Leftist causes. If you value human freedom, and religious freedom; and despise authoritarian control and totalitarianism, you will come to the conclusion that Islam simply is not conducive to freedom.

Re: The Crusades
 

DVaut1, it has nothing to do with "circular logic." Rather, it has everything to do with what is contained in the Koran (and somewhat with how Mohammed chose to live his life). The Koran contains specific injunctions and instructions, and if these are followed, the result is an authoritarian/religious society and government.

Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
You ought perhaps to read some Orianna Fallaci (...)

[/ QUOTE ] Gawd, this brings back memories! I was reading that Italian reporter's over-the-top stuff way, way back in the 70s! Aren't you supposed to be over her crudities yet?

[ QUOTE ]
Spain ... were ... under a form of religio-fascistic control, a type of totalitarianism.

[/ QUOTE ]Funny how that period and that region produced some of the most exquisite achievements in art and science!

When you get some time off reading yer Ayn Rand, google up "algorithm", to check out the etymology and what kind of "religio-fascist" (sic) was behind it.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
DVaut1, it has nothing to do with "circular logic." Rather, it has everything to do with what is contained in the Koran (and somewhat with how Mohammed chose to live his life). The Koran contains specific injunctions and instructions, and if these are followed, the result is an authoritarian/religious society and government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh...go on, I'm listening oh-so-closely ...

Wait, I'll have to get back to you on this. Phil Hellmuth is giving a poker etiquette lesson on TV (about how to take bad beats) that I really want to catch, given how much credence, credibility, and authority he has on the subject.

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

Cyrus, I don't read Ayn Rand; sorry to disappoint. I haven't really read Orianna Fallaci either, but I strongly suspect some folks would benefit from reading more of ANY author who is firmly against totalitarianism/fascism.

Also, whatever the art, etc. which the 11th century produced has NOTHING to do with whether or not Islam is an absolutist ideology.

You guys just don't realize the inherent evils of fascism, absloutist ideology, totalitarianism, etc.--that's the only explanation I can come up with for why you guys don't TOTALLY PAN systems which are based on such things.

Well, to each his own. You enjoy your croissants; I'll take freedom any day over the biggest croissant in ther world. Even with cheese.

Freedom is FAR more important than Art.

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
You guys just don't realize the inherent evils of fascism, absloutist ideology, totalitarianism, etc.--that's the only explanation I can come up with for why you guys don't TOTALLY PAN systems which are based on such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe it's just that you're wrong. That's another explanation you should have come up with.

Failing to might indicate some other, larger problems. I'll let Nuts4Dawgs elaborate.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DVaut1, it has nothing to do with "circular logic." Rather, it has everything to do with what is contained in the Koran (and somewhat with how Mohammed chose to live his life). The Koran contains specific injunctions and instructions, and if these are followed, the result is an authoritarian/religious society and government.

[/ QUOTE ]



Uh huh...go on, I'm listening oh-so-closely ...

Wait, I'll have to get back to you on this. Phil Hellmuth is giving a poker etiquette lesson on TV (about how to take bad beats) that I really want to catch, given how much credence, credibility, and authority he has on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but you're NOT listening. As I recall, we went over this in a separate thread or two, and I provided examples and gave reading recommendations and you weren't really interested in much but restating your own point of view and questioning mine. As I noted before, the Muslim imams and scholars who have been immersed in Islam their entire lives agree with me on these things, and I've even provided examples--as well as examples of the religious POV's of bin-Laden anbd Zarqawi, in their own words--but based on your prior responses I don't think you are truly interested. No big deal; I don't care if you are interested or not. If you are, listen to what the imams say, even today, and you'll see I'm reporting accurately. Not that you care, though.

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but you're NOT listening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider other possibilities.

There's certainly a chance that everyone who doesn't agree with you just isn't listening. But I think that would rule out some other important possibilites you might do well to consider -- possibilities that I think are frankly much more likely.

[ QUOTE ]
As I recall, we went over this in a separate thread or two, and I provided examples and gave reading recommendations and you weren't really interested in much but restating your own point of view and questioning mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes, yes, your views will be questioned. It's not that I wasn't interested in what you had to say. In fact, I was -- which is why I questioned you. Think about it.

[ QUOTE ]
As I noted before, the Muslim imams and scholars who have been immersed in Islam their entire lives agree with me on these things,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to remember this one -- next time someone disagrees with me, just claim the authorities in-the-know concur with whatever I have to say. Accept such things prima facie. If you question me, you're clearly not listening.

[ QUOTE ]
and I've even provided examples--as well as examples of the religious POV's of bin-Laden anbd Zarqawi, in their own words--

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as I provided, for you, in Paul Hill's own words, why murderous abortion-doctor-killers are inspiried by the inherent vicious and violent nature of the Christian bible.

You weren't convinced?

[ QUOTE ]
but based on your prior responses I don't think you are truly interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am.

[ QUOTE ]
listen to what the imams say, even today, and you'll see I'm reporting accurately.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I have listened.
2) I don't think you're reporting accurately. There are other possibilites as to why I don't agree with you, and why I don't think you're reporting accurately, that don't revolve around me not listening.

Again, think it over.

Re: The Crux
 

[ QUOTE ]
And Nut4Dawgs dares to whine about my high perch!


[/ QUOTE ]


I've been accused of a lot of things, Sparky, but whining has never, ever been one of them.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The Crusades
 

I was under the impression that most of the crusaders borrowed money from the Jews at home to finance their crusades, banking on the fact that they would get rich in the Holy Land and be able to easily pay off their debts. Their primary purpose of going on the crusade was just that. Since most did not get rich, they came back with great debts to the Jews which further increased European anti-Semitism.

Did the documentary mention this at all?

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys just don't realize the inherent evils of fascism, absloutist ideology, totalitarianism, etc.--that's the only explanation I can come up with for why you guys don't TOTALLY PAN systems which are based on such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe it's just that you're wrong. That's another explanation you should have come up with.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the one hand, DVault1, he may be right. Fascism, absolutist ideology, and totalitarianism are evil. According you to, however, he's wrong. Which means you believe fascism, absolutiist ideology, and totalitarianism are good.

I'm guessing you have dreadlocks and wear "Free Leonard Peltier" T-shirts. Do you just like being different?

Re: The Crusades
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did the documentary mention this at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, im pretty sure it did. Although I would have to watch it again to see the context in which it was presented.

I've watched the first two of five and plan on watching 3 and 4 tonite. God bless Usenet!

Tuco.

Re: Where You Were, I Was
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the one hand, DVault1, he may be right. Fascism, absolutist ideology, and totalitarianism are evil. According you to, however, he's wrong. Which means you believe fascism, absolutiist ideology, and totalitarianism are good.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no - this is important. I think he's wrong. I'm pretty damn certain he's wrong. But I'm totally willing to admit he might be right -- so much so that I don't attribute his not agreeing with me to an inability or an unwillingness to listen.

Huge difference. It's like the difference, in tournament poker, between raising all-in and calling an all-in. And there's a reason why the distinction is important.

And for the record, I don't disagree that totalitarianism and fascism are evil (I have some reservations calling all absolutists ideologies evil; I'm absolutely sure murder is wrong, for instance).

What I do disagree with, and what I'm fairly certain M is wrong about, is that Islamic states have a natural or inherent tendency to be evil, totalitarian, or fascistic.

And I'm even more certain that even if they are, that it's not due to anything regarding the nature of Islam.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing you have dreadlocks and wear "Free Leonard Peltier" T-shirts. Do you just like being different?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

No, I don't have dredlocks, nor do I wear 'Free Leonard Peltier' t-shirt.

I don't necessarily think there's any inherent value in 'being different'. Certainly, such things are dependent on the circumstances.

Cliff Notes Central
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't really read Orianna Fallaci either.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me understand this : Did you just recommend an author you have NOT read?

This would be brilliant, even by your standards...