Posted on 11/26/2001 9:07:31 PM PST by ouroboros
Five days after declaring war on terrorism, the president urged Americans to be patient: "This crusade ... is going to take awhile." Immediately, the cry arose, "How could he be so cruelly insensitive!"
Bush was scourged and admonished that he had insulted the Islamic world. Did he not know the Crusades were wars of criminal Christian aggression marked by pillage and massacre? The president apologized, and no one has since embraced the dreaded term.
At Georgetown, Bill Clinton suggested Sept. 11 may even be payback. "Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless," said the paragon of the Woodstock generation. "In the First Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the temple mount. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the temple mount, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East, and we are still paying for it."
But why Americans, whose first president was a Mason who did not take office until 1789, should be slaughtered in 2001 because of a crusade preached by a pope in 1095, Clinton left unexplained.
A little history. In 600 A.D., the Mediterranean basin was largely Christian. But within a century of the death of Mohammed in 632, armies of Islam had conquered Syria and Palestine, swept over North Africa, and overrun Spain, only to be defeated at Poitiers by Charles Martel. Had they triumphed, Christianity might have died in Europe, as it would in the cities of Augustine and Athanasius.
"The common assumption that the Crusades were an act of unprovoked Christian aggression" is false, writes Warren Carroll, the historian of Christendom. Before 1095, "all the aggression had been Muslim. The Muslims were the original and continuing attackers and conquerors of Christian territory." Only after centuries living in fear of the hosts of Islam did Urban II preach the First Crusade.
The goal that animated the Crusaders was Jerusalem. "Those who deride this as a Christian objective have lived too long in books and under lamps," writes Carroll. "Real men and women, as distinct from scholarly abstractions, have homes which they love. Jesus Christ was a real man. He had a home. He loved it. His followers [and] worshipers who came after Him loved the land and places He had loved and trod, simply because He had loved and trodden them. Utterly convinced that He is God, they could not believe it right that any people not recognizing Him as God should rule His homeland."
A majority in Palestine was probably still Christian in 1095, writes Carroll, "They had ... as much right to their land as the Muslim conquerors." If Mecca were overrun by heathen armies, would not Muslim peoples be justified in launching a "jihad" to liberate their holy city? Would they apologize or be ashamed of having done so?
The Crusader armies, led by Godfrey of Bouillon and Raymond of Toulouse, captured Jerusalem in 1099, where a massacre did occur. But that same evil befell the knights, and their wives and children, when the last Crusader castle, Acre, fell to the Mameluks in 1291. Have we heard any apologies for the slaughter at Acre?
Offered the title King of Jerusalem, Raymond and Godfrey both refused to wear a crown of gold in the city where Christ had worn a crown of thorns. It was an age of faith. The First Crusade, writes Carroll, was "a just war conducted for a deeply spiritual purpose, though often seriously flawed in its execution." As was World War II.
After that Good War in which British Air Marshal "Bomber" Harris incinerated thousands of refugee women and children in Dresden, Dwight Eisenhower titled his memoir "Crusade in Europe." If he was not ashamed of the term, why are we?
Because this generation has been indoctrinated in a pack of lies by the moral sappers of the 1960s nesting in our schools. To them, Western Civilization is an abomination. The greatest explorers, like Columbus, are genocidal racists. Our founding fathers were slave-owning hypocrites. The soldier-statesmen of Western empires were brutal imperialists. Now, we must also be ashamed of crusades launched to recapture, in the name of our Lord, the Holy Land seized from Christendom by the armies of Islam.
The great enemies of the West today are its over-privileged children who are undermining this greatest civilization the world has ever seen. If we should be ashamed of anything, it is for having twice elected one of them as president. Bill Clinton could not carry the sandals, let alone the sword, of Godfrey of Bouillon.
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national televison shows, and is the author of six books. His current position is chairman of The American Cause. His newest book, "Death of the West," will be published in January.
Christian Pat had no problem pandering for Muslim votes in the last election.
Christian Pat had no problem pandering for Muslim votes in the last election.
True. But without a doubt, Christian Bush got more...do you accuse Bush of being in cahoots with the Arabs to wipe out Israel?
I issue the same challenge I issued to Sabramerican on a different thread (he never responded; maybe you will).
Cite one instance, just one, where Buchanan (or anyone in FR) called for the US to join with the Arabs to wipe out Israel.
I await your response.
Ending military aid to Israel would have the same result. Israel, being a small nation, is not capable of holding off the entire Arab world without material assistance, any more than Taiwan would be able to hold off Red China without the assistance of the US Navy. At least, the Israelis, as opposed to the Taiwanese, do their own fighting.
Because this generation has been indoctrinated in a pack of lies by the moral sappers of the 1960s nesting in our schools. To them, Western Civilization is an abomination. The greatest explorers, like Columbus, are genocidal racists. Our founding fathers were slave-owning hypocrites. The soldier-statesmen of Western empires were brutal imperialists. Now, we must also be ashamed of crusades launched to recapture, in the name of our Lord, the Holy Land seized from Christendom by the armies of Islam.The great enemies of the West today are its over-privileged children who are undermining this greatest civilization the world has ever seen. If we should be ashamed of anything, it is for having twice elected one of them as president.
I don't usually agree with Pat but he is right on target, here.
I don't see how this is endorsing Arabs wiping out Israel.
If you are curious, but there really is no need, go to this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/574533/posts
and check how many times I attempted to respond to the idiot's question.
How do they lie so blatantly?
As will any public figure willing to stand on principle, right or wrong, when those principles run counter to "correct" beliefs.
The irony is that by attacking Buchanan many here make it that much more difficult for the principled conservatives among us to similarly stand on our principles.
Wipe out a billion Arabs? Are you serious?
Would it be quick and painless? Most definitely not. Would it be final? Probably not; history doesn't support this. One thing is certain: there will not be peace in the mid-east until either the Arabs or Jews are wiped out. I say we let the Jews win it; then they won't need US money for protection.
It's a catch-22 for Israel (I think Sabramerican and I actually agreed here); Israel has the ability to take out the Arab creeps, but want the US $3-4 billion, and this is dependent on the US letting them hit the Arabs.
Please show mw where I have continued to slander Buchanan.
Why then would you state that [the crusades are] not worthy of discussion at this time?
I never stated the crusades were not worthy of discussion. I only stated that I am glad we have the president we do in George W. Bush who is properly more concerned about building a coalition that will win the war, not settle an old score.
You have a fixation on Pat that borders on the absurd. The guy writes a descent article and all you can say is, "Yes but..."
Many people believe in conservative causes but do not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan or his foolishness. There are liberals who agree with the beliefs of Al Sharpton but for these same reasons, wish not to be associated with the person of Al Sharpton.
Pat has this same problem, except he now only agrees with conservatives half of the time.
What gives? Nothing that you have posted justifies your actions.
I was thinking the same thing about you. You are either not reading the posts before you reply or are engaging in the behavior for which you have condemned Bush supporters.
Nothing we say to each other on a conservative web site is going to make it more difficult for conservatives to stand on principles. But I think the real irony is that Pat Buchanan hurts the causes he believes in more than he helps.
Pat's position on immigration is one of the best. But you have conservatives who will not touch the issue because it has been tainted by a man who keeps putting his foot in his mouth.
Where I get frustrated is when people who obviously can, or at least should be able to think for themselves buy into it. Without question. Without any sort of thoughtful analysis. Without any means of proving what they say (because the can't, because it is untrue).
OK, I've said my piece.
Yep. A lot of that going around latley.
Your points are like arguing whether Ford should bring back the Pinto.
"Yes, it exploded. But it was not the fault of the Pinto. I was a faulty fuel line gasket made my a company in Witchita, Kansas. [yada, yada, yada]"
And no matter how many facts you can quote, people are still not going to buy a Pinto.
Buchanan says what he thinks, whether popular or not. If you believe thats equal to putting a foot in mouth, fine. Although I don't agree with everything the man says I find his positions to usually be well thought out & I greatly admire his candor.
The criticism of Pat I see seldom has anything to do with honest debate, in fact it seldom amounts to more than an assortment of ad hominem attacks. Favorite tactic of the Left - disappointing to see on this board.
It is that same candor which showed his true intentions in last year's elections.
When asked about his failure in last year's election, he commented that he at least helped defeat Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham [endorsed by the NRA, Right to Life, Chamber of Commerce, Citizens for Traditional Values]. He was replaced by Democrat Debbie Stabenow [endorsed by NARAL, Emily's List, Handgun Control, Planned Parenthood].
I am from Michigan. Spence Abraham was the most conservative senator that we in Michigan have had in 30 or 40 years. He was defeated by a flaming liberal. We have six years of her. And then we will have to run a very difficult battle against a well-funded incumbent.
And Pat Buchanan is proud of that?
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.