Posted on 08/19/2014 12:42:55 AM PDT by chessplayer
Vox's Max Fisher shamelessly invoked medieval history in a Monday post about Pope Francis. Fisher highlighted the pontiff's support for action against ISIS's "unjust aggression" in Iraq, and hyped that "there is good precedent for this...between 1096 and 1272 AD, popes also endorsed the use of Western military action to destroy Middle Eastern caliphates. Those were known as the crusades; there were nine, which means that this would be number 10."
The former Washington Post journalist immediately set the tone with the title of his post: "News from 1096 AD: Pope endorses military force to destroy Middle Eastern caliphate." Fisher continued in this vein in his lead paragraph:
Not mentioned is the fact that the Crusades were for the purpose of freeing the huge numbers of Christians taken captive by the Muslims (including many Europeans kidnapped from the Mediterranean) and expelling the Muslims from the Christian holy sites, which they had overrun and captured.
The Crusades were not just for the heck of it, but because Islam was pushing at the borders of Europe too and the popes had given many warnings and asked for help many times from the European rulers (who were too busy fighting among themselves to have the strength or resources to fight the real threat).
The Crusades were essentially defensive. The final crusade ended in disaster, mostly because by then many of the soldiers were mercenaries, engaged in looting, and also went on a rampage when the Greeks (who had agreed to fund them) refused to pay up. While there were differences between the Eastern and Western church authorities at the time, the famous attack by the Crusaders was actually a pay dispute. So while the Crusades declined in religious or even military value over time, they were originally defensive actions.
As things go downhill, the word Crusade sounds better and better.
Sorry Islam, you’ve played one too many hands. The bluff is over.
It’s well past time for A ‘Crusade’....
Ehh...the crusades were engaged in only after 400 years or so of muslim invasion and takeover...and then threatening to phsh into europe.....so...yes...isis keeps this up...and there very well may be cause for another crusade.
Correct me if I’m wrong. In the first crusade there were no Muslims. They were pagans. It was Mohamed who noticed that the Christians, unified by their religion, could fight side by side even though some did not have a common language, who started Islam. Islam was intended to be 180 degree counter to Christianity. It unified the pagans and granted its new members special privileges in loot and slaves that were not enjoyed by non-members.
Where Christianity held wider aspirations Islam’s only purpose, originally, was to destroy Christianity. Where Christianity was one component of a wider society, Islam was intended to supplant all components and become law, government, education and creed all in one.
I’m down with that. A Crusade would most certain focus the islamofilth’s primitive minds that the civilized world is fed up.
Those were known as the crusades; there were nine, which means that this would be number 10.”
***
Hey, I’d be down with that. That’s not what the pope has in mind, but it would be a good move.
The original Crusades were called to protect the Holy Land and the pilgrims visiting there after the outrageous acts of the filthy mohammedans, who have not changed after all of these centuries.
I’m down with that.
***
I used the same phrasing in my response to the article, which appears right under your comment. Weird.
In the first crusade there were no Muslims.
____________________________
Historical source (based on good primary sources)?
GMTA!
IN NEED A CRUSADE AGAINST THE BARBARIC ISLAMIC TERRORISM
Obama, the Islamic State and Christian
8/19/2014 - Chuck Norris
Pundits and news agencies have questioned the validity of reports that the Islamic State is beheading children in its conquest of Syria and Iraq. But there is one fact that can’t be contested: The Sunni-dominated al-Qaida splinter group is on a war rampage using some of the most heinous and barbaric means to exterminate anyone who opposes it, particularly Christians.
In 2011, President Barack Obama declared, “The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year.” The only thing he didn’t count on was that the terrorist enemies of the U.S. decided not to also call it quits on the war.
Last Wednesday, Obama called it quits again with combat operations in Iraq — or the dropping-bombs-and-not-calling-it-combat-operations operations.
From his vacation spot on Martha’s Vineyard, Obama declared: “We broke the (Islamic State) siege of Mount Sinjar. We helped vulnerable people reach safety, and we helped save many innocent lives. Because of these efforts, we do not expect there to be an additional operation to evacuate people off the mountain, and it’s unlikely that we’re going to need to continue humanitarian airdrops on the mountain. The majority of the military personnel who conducted the assessment will be leaving Iraq in the coming days.”
I guess we should be relieved again that we’re “pulling out of Iraq,” and the Islamic State will retreat from its tyrannical rampages, right? Not a chance.
While Obama was politicizing the success of his in-and-out combat mission, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “called on the international community to do even more to provide protection,” according to UN News Centre.
Why? Because just two days before Obama spoke about mission success, the U.N. refugee agency reported that “an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 people remain trapped on the Mountain.”
A “profoundly dismayed” Ban added that the Islamic State remains carrying out “barbaric acts,” which he said, in UN News Centre’s words, “include accounts of summary executions, boys forcibly taken from their homes to fight, (and) girls abducted or trafficked as sex slaves.” Even those who manage to get off Mount Sinjar “remain exposed to,” Ban said, “a perilous odyssey” to freedom.
How perilous? Here’s what we know about the Islamic State’s horrific acts over the past few months:
The rest of the story
I was wrong. I thought Mohammed lived 600 years ago. Turns out he lived in the year 600. The first crusade was 10xx-something.
Yes, you are correct. May God bless you and yours. On November 27, 1095, in Clermont, France, Pope Urban II called for a Crusade to help the Byzantines and to free the city of Jerusalem from the Turks. That led to the First Crusade which spanned the years 1096 - 1099.
What a shame that Mohammed could not have learned from Jesus. Jesus never killed anyone...but Mohammed killed many.
We may indeed need a Crusade if groups like ISIL continue to glorify killing.
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.