Two Plus Two Older Archives

Two Plus Two Older Archives (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Politics (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   The Crusades (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=389016)

Tuco 12-01-2005 07:17 AM

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.

MMMMMM 12-01-2005 09:48 AM

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.

canis582 12-01-2005 10:00 AM

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.

bobman0330 12-01-2005 02:07 PM

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.

PoBoy321 12-01-2005 02:14 PM

Re: The Crusades
 
[ QUOTE ]

Nice stuff this religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

12-01-2005 02:19 PM

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]

Tuco 12-01-2005 03:57 PM

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.

Tuco 12-01-2005 04:04 PM

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.

Tuco 12-01-2005 04:09 PM

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.

PoBoy321 12-01-2005 05:04 PM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.