Outrage after Obama compares ISIS to the Crusades in comments at National Prayer Breakfast

Obama is a de facto Muslim. It is obvious where his sympathies lie.

#40 +1

If so, when can we expect to see building diving?

Yes, The Obamanation is a Moslem, and he is going to get bolder and bolder in his statements until he finally “comes out” as a true believer — probably in the last months of his term. (If, indeed, he leaves the WH in 2017).

I think he will find or create a way to declare a national emergency and appoint himself as President for as long he says it exists. Americans will not fight as long as their sports are on tv and nutty games and porno are on their computers. I think we are well and truly screwed since only us old guys will fight.

ISIS may actually have stepped over a line with the burning of the pilot. That particular barbarity is actually anti Koranic whichis actually what got Abdullah's people and thus Abdulah all excited. Cutting off of the head or limbs is explicitly mandated in the Koran. Burning as punishment is reserved to Shaitan. The Sultan is probably genuinely incensed, but that will pass. His goals are being well served at the moment by ISIS. If the burning does incite the other states in the ME to go vigorously after ISIS to destroy it then the Sultan may have to do what he can to damage those countries- Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and with them Israel.

The times right now are truly strange. We seem to be in the early stages of WW III and it is as if in 1938 we had Himmler or Goering as our President

LOL! Yes he did! I think he came out as a Muslim today because he said this in the same speech:

“We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends”

Our religion? If he is a Christian like he has claimed wouldn’t he say “We are summoned to push back against those who would distort Islam for their nihilistic ends”?

The guy is a lying dog, everything about him is a facade.

And the atrocities of the time were just warfare as it was fought. The Moslems, being Asians, were nastier.

I know right, did you ever think you would ever live to see the day where a sitting US President would be defending radical Islam more than Islamic countries? The world is completely upside down but I expect nothing less when liberals are elected to office.

Does the Vatican Owe an Apology to Muslims for the Crusades?

Robert Spencer, at frontpagemag.com (3-22-05):

Excerpts

http://hnn.us/article/10950

Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, which will out from Regnery Publishing in a few months.

In it, I am clearing away propaganda and telling what really happened. 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. The churches that St. Paul addressed in his letters collected in the New Testament are located in Asia Minor, modern Turkey, as well as modern Greece. North of Greece, in a buffer zone between Eastern and Western Europe, were lands that would become the Christian domains of the Slavs.

Antioch and Constantinople (Istanbul), in modern Turkey, and Alexandria, in modern Egypt, were three of the most important Christian centers of the first millennium.

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 Qur’an 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.

Conversion to Islam became the only way to live a decent life. And lo and behold, the Christian populations of these areas steadily diminished.

Conventional wisdom has it that these Christians welcomed the invaders, preferring the yoke of Islam to that of Byzantium. 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. Here is a contemporary account of the Muslims’ arrival in Nikiou, an Egyptian town, in the 640’s:

Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiou. There was not one single soldier to resist them. They seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches — men, women and children, sparing nobody. Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found. . . .But let us now say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed when they occupied the island of Nikiou. . . .

Not only did this involve massacres, but exile and enslavement — all based on a broken treaty:

Amr oppressed Egypt. He sent its inhabitants to fight the inhabitants of the Pentapolis [Tripolitania] and, after gaining a victory, he did not allow them to stay there. He took considerable booty from this country and a large number of prisoners. . . .The Muslims returned to their country with booty and captives. The patriarch Cyrus felt deep grief at the calamities in Egypt, because Amr, who was of barbarian origin, showed no mercy in his treatment of the Egyptians and did not fulfill the covenants which had been agreed with him.

Once the Muslims were entrenched in power, they began to levy the jizya, the tax on non-Muslims:

. . Amr’s position became stronger from day to day. He levied the tax that had been stipulated . . . But it is impossible to describe the lamentable position of the inhabitants of this town, who came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month, finding no one to help them because God had abandoned them and had delivered the Christians into the hands of their enemies.[3]

An eyewitness of the Muslim conquest of Armenia in 642 tells what happened when they took the town of Dvin: “The enemy’s army rushed in and butchered the inhabitants of the town by the sword. . . . After a few days’ rest, the Ismaelites [Arabs] went back whence they had come, dragging after them a host of captives, numbering thirty-five thousand.”[4]

On the island of Cos a few years later, the Muslim general Abu l-A’war, according to another contemporary account, “laid waste and pillaged all its riches, slaughtered the population and led the remnant into captivity, and destroyed its citadel.”[5]

According to the Syrian Orthodox patriarch, Michael the Syrian (1126–1199), Muslims conquered Cilicia and Caesarea of Cappadocia in the year 650 in this way: They [the Taiyaye, or Muslim Arabs] moved into Cilicia and took prisoners . . . and when Mu’awiya arrived he ordered all the inhabitants to be put to the sword; he placed guards so that no one escaped.

After gathering up all the wealth of the town, they set to torturing the leaders to make them show them things [treasures] that had been hidden. The Taiyaye led everyone into slavery — men and women, boys and girls — and they committed much debauchery in that unfortunate town; they wickedly committed immoralities inside churches.[6]

Muslim chroniclers of the time make no secret of this. The Muslim historian Ibn al-Athir (1160-1233), in his world history entitled The Complete History, includes this account of eighth and ninth century Muslim incursions into Spain and France:

In 177 [17 April 793], Hisham, [Muslim] prince of Spain, sent a large army commanded by Abd al-Malik b. Abd al-Wahid b. Mugith into enemy territory, and which made forays as far as Narbonne and Jaranda [Gerona]. . . . For several months he traversed this land in every direction, raping women, killing warriors, destroying fortresses, burning and pillaging everything, driving back the enemy who fled in disorder. He returned safe and sound, dragging behind him God knows how much booty.

In Amorium in Asia Minor in 838, says Michael the Syrian, “there were so many women’s convents and monasteries that over a thousand virgins were led into captivity, not counting those that had been slaughtered. They were given to the Moorish slaves, so as to assuage their lust . . .”[7]

Much later, when Muslim armies resumed their expansion in Europe after a period of relative decline (which most notoriously included the loss of Sicily in 1091, the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099, and the steady erosion of their power in Spain), they held true to this pattern of behavior. 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.”[8]

The circumstances of the first Crusade were these:

Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being molested by Muslims and prevented from reaching the holy places. Some were killed. This was finally the impetus that moved Western Christianity to try to take back just one small portion of the Christian lands that had fallen to the Muslim sword over the last centuries.

“The Crusade,” noted 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.”[9]

Whatever undeniable sins Christians committed during their course, the Crusades were essentially a defensive action: a belated and insufficient attempt by Western Christians to turn back the tide of Islam that had engulfed the Eastern Church.

“When accusing the West of imperialism,” says the historian of jihad Paul Fregosi, “Muslims are obsessed with the Christian Crusades but have forgotten their own, much grander Jihad.”

The lands in dispute during each Crusade were the ancient lands of Christendom, where Christians had flourished for centuries before Muhammad’s armies called them idolaters and enslaved and killed them. If Westerners had no right to invade these putative Muslim lands, then Muslims had no right to take them in the first place.

Thus if Al-Azhar wants to demand an apology for the Crusades, it should be ready to apologize for the conquest of the Middle East and North Africa. But the most disturbing element of this sorry exercise of historical revision is that their “request” may well be granted by the Vatican. And if it is, it would be just one more link on a long chain of double standards by which Western authorities seem ready to bend over backwards to grant concessions to the Islamic world, while asking for and receiving nothing in return.

For example, Al-Azhar itself has praised suicide bombers as martyrs[10] and declared that Islamic states have a religious obligation to acquire nuclear weapons.[11] Yet no one in the West is demanding an apology from them for these approvals of very contemporary menaces. It figures.
Notes:

[1] Bill Clinton, “Remarks as delivered by President William Jefferson Clinton, Georgetown University, November 7, 2001.” Georgetown University Office of Protocol and Events, www.georgetown.edu.
[2] Mark Twain, Tom Sawyer Abroad, University of California Press, 1982, p. 7.
[3] Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996, pp. 271-272.
[4] Ibid., p. 275.
[5] Ibid., p. 276.
[6] Ibid., pp. 276-277.
[7] Ibid., p. 283.
[8] Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, 1965, p. 145.
[9] Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History , Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 163-4.
[10] “Egyptian grand shaykh: Islamic law sees suicide-bombers as martyrs,” Independent Media Review Analysis, November 3, 2003.
[11] “New Islamic Ruling Calls for Nuclear Weapon Armament,” Independent Media Review Analysis, December 24, 2002.

He keeps telling us that in so many ways. He has said explicitly, albeit as slips of the tongue, as far back as his original presidential election campaign and he told the Arabic speaking Moslems of the world that in his speech in Cairo.

and so’s his “wife.”

Excellent!

HE CHOSE POORLY!!

If he were an idiot we wouldn’t be in so parlous a state now. Then again we have to include Valerie Jarret, also Moslem, in the thing we call President Obama. She seems to have the first and final says in anything he does.

Thanks for the excellent history lesson.

I’m saving it for the next time a priest/pastor tries to blame Muslim violence on the crusades.

I have one bumper sticker... A crusader cross.

I encourage everyone to get one.

I don’t think he meant to come out as a Muslim, but he really did.

Personally, the reason I think he hasn’t openly built a prayer tower next to the WH is because he doesn’t want to have to declare as Sunni or Shiite, because he is so deluded he sees himself as the super-Muslim who is going to create one unified Islam.

He is a Sunni, of course, because Indonesian Muslims are 98% Sunni; but he is putting Shiite Iran in charge of the ME, which is freaking out our few Sunni allies (such as Jordan). But that’s because we just thought he wanted to be dictator of the US, but he sees himself as much, much more, as a sort of supernatural Muslim figure destined to lead Islam.

Chamberlain probably thought he was doing good for Peace and Britain. Hussein is under no such illusion. It is as if the USA had elected Nikita Krushchev as President in 1960.