Posted on 03/12/2006 7:55:48 AM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The Crusades began with a rumor of defilement. In 1095, Pope Urban II denounced the Muslims as "a race utterly alienated from God." Among their many offenses, Muslims had seized the churches of Jerusalem: "They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcisions they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font." Such false rumors were already widespread in Christendom. Urban tapped them to launch the First Crusade.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtoninstitute.org ...
"A race utterly alienated from God" -- this is how Pope Urban II demonized the Muslims in the 11th century. This is exactly how Islam's leaders are demonizing the West in the 21st. The secular West had flattered itself, believing it had pulled the Muslim world into modernity. Yes, Islam has sent forth suicide bombers and terrorist insurgents. But they and their sympathizers were in the minority -- so the pollsters and analysts told us: "Don't judge Islam by the acts of a misguided few." This faith in the pragmatic Muslim majority has underpinned every Western policy, from the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" to the Bush administration's democracy promotion. The Muslim masses, the assumption goes, will choose peace and freedom, if given the chance. But they haven't. 9/11 could be attributed to a fanatic minority. Not so the Danish cartoon protests: Millions have taken part.
What about the Iranians who elected a president openly bent on confrontation with the West? What of those Egyptian voters who gave the Muslim Brotherhood a stunning success in parliamentary elections? And what about the supposedly secular Palestinians, who have swept Hamas into power? A poll conducted last year showed that 60 percent of Jordanians, Egyptians and Palestinians want Islamic shari'a law to be the sole source of legislation.
Excerpt....... http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=904
*ring*ring*ring*
"Good Morning. The State Department."
"Yes, I want to report a gang of Muslim terrorists living next door to me who have trucks full of explosives in thier driveway..."
*click*
"Hello, Hello, State Department, are you there??"
You nailed that right... lol
LoL..
bump
The title is wrong. The Muslims don't "Crusade", they Jihad.
Why don't "historians" ever start at the beginning?
After years (centuries) of Muslim attacks on Christians and Jews, the Catholic Church responded.
Next time somebody wants to start the story in 1035, ask them to back up to 632.
Pope Urban II re Muslims:"A race utterly alienated from God."Just as true today.
Not to absolve Christians of the occasional wrongs they did commit during the Crusades - especially against Jews - they were fighting a defensive battle. Europe was not ignorant of the zealotries of islam nor unaware of it's bloody and destructive expansion through the Middle-East and North Africa.
Demonizing Pope Urban II's characterization of islamocists is like demonizing President Roosevelt's attacks on Nazism or the Japanese military machine.
"They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcisions they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font." Such false rumors were already widespread in Christendom"
And those weren't false rumors. The muhammadans were every bit as brutal and barbaric as they are today, and the tradition of mutilating their conquered enemies genitals, both male and female is still practiced. Just look at what they do in places such as Indonesia or the Sudan.
From the article: "This time, the crusade would be a Muslim one." Next time, try reading history. In Islam, it's called Jihad. The author acts as if something has changed in Islam's quest to obliterate infidels. Nothing has changed in their intentions or methods.
You don't understand the premise of the article. The author is conveying the fact that the Muslims behavior is tipping to the point again that the Christians will be compelled to "Crusade" against them again.
The Kings and princes, landlords and other wealthy overlords were the ones responsible for those acts. The Crusade was an opportunity to add to ones holdings. The only vow they had to Christianity was to secure the holylands for the Church. The rest was gravey for they taking.
Just keep that link handy to pass on (or quote) whenever the topic comes up. It points to what the crusades really were- and- if not for them, The world would be a very ugly place today, much worse than it is now. The world today is heading towards what it would have been centuries ago if the crusades didn't happen at all. They weren't exactly sucessfull either; had they been, had their been more unity, and less greed among the greedy, the problems emerging once more today would have been taken care of back then- permanently.
 |
 |
So here is a constructive business proposal. Freepers all around the country come together for form a company that will provide high end jitney service. The goal would be to reduce by 1/2 the amount of gasoline used for commuting.
I propose the name of the company be:
MOOSE LIMBS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
The corporate symbol is obvious.
Our motto?
We Revere the Profit
Every corporate vehicle will sport our mascot: The Bomb Head picture of mohammed in the Danish cartoons.
Any enterpeneurial freepers interested?
I think his point is that "jihad" is just the Arabic word for "crusade," and that anyone who sneers at Christians for crusading but defends Muslims for jihading is a hypocritical idiot.
I thought the same thing about the article. The Crusades were a direct result of Muslim expansion.
Just as true today.
You're right, they weren't a "race" then, and they still aren't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.