Posted on 10/06/2014 4:58:53 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Remember this the next time you see a report by Ayman Mohyeldin. The man NBC sends to report on doings in Muslim countries around the world is unwilling to say which extremism—Christian, Jewish or Muslim—poses the greatest current threat to civilization.
When Joe Scarborough posed that very question to the NBC reporter on today's Morning Joe, Mohyeldin punted. Instead of talking about current threats, Mohyeldin reached back almost 1,000 years, countering with talk of the Crusades.
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
If a reporter can’t say that in 2014, Muslim extremism represents a greater threat than Christian or Jewish extremism, what good is he? Ping to Today show list.
A new three episode series on the crusades begins on Oct 8 at 2200 ET on EWTN.
The Crusades were vital for the continued existence of Christian Europe. Muslims were engaged in hundreds, perhaps thousands of raids throughout Europe. Spain, France and Italy were virtually lost. The Holy Land was lost. Without the Crusades Christianity would have been decimated.
The Crusades were the result of Christians finally standing up to Islam after 100’s of years of putting up with their rape, murder and pillage.
The Crusades began AFTER 400 years of Muslim invasions and slaughters of Christians.
They were a defensive response.
Idiots, shills, propagandists, useless idiots. Inheritors of Joseph Goebbels dictates. He would be so proud.
It says a lot about a religion if you have to go back a thousand years.
True Christian fundamentalism would result in close adherence to orthodox scriptural doctrine. The results being personal holiness, self sacrifice (the non-explosive type) and a working display of the love of God.
True Muslim fundamentalism would result in close adherence to orthodox koranic doctrine. The results being what we are seeing in ISIS.
This leads me to believe that the real muslim extremists are those who respect other religions, treat women as people not property, and seek peace with those of different values values and generally ignore fundamently Koranic doctrine,i.e., a moderate muslim.
Why stop with the Crusades?
Heck, let’s go back to the Battle of Actium. Makes as much sense.
We should all have our children and grandchildren google Charles ‘The Hammer’ Martel...no one else will tell them about Islam’s history of aggression.
What good are any of them?
Battle of Tours. If we had not had the crusades, we’d all be speaking Arabic and bowing towards Mecca five times a day.
Let’s have another Crusade.
The Islamic doctrine that once a place is conquered by Islam (Dar al-Islam) it remains Islamic territory forever, should be turned against them by Christianity. From Egypt to Turkey through the entire Mediterranean basin, all of it was Christian before the Islamic conquest by force! Return them to their precious Mecca and Medina which were only shared by Christians and Jews before Mohammed.
As I recall, the Crusades were a response to 400 years of very successful Islamic invasions of Christian countries.
Wasn’t the point of the first Crusade to succor the Byzantine Christians and regain the Holy Land, which had fallen to Islamic conquest?
Urban was able to organize the crusade by granting guaranteed access to heaven to all participants. Also, at that time, Europe practiced primogenitor so there were many with titles but no land, who considered themselves to be of the Davidic bloodline with claims to Jerusalem.
Thanks so much for posting that. It’s set for the DVR now.
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.