Posted on 09/14/2003 11:28:25 AM PDT by quidnunc
Where a person stands determines how Osama bin Laden is viewed. In the West, he is seen as the murderous terrorist and force behind the Sept. 11 attacks. From the East, he is viewed as a holy leader and protector against Western influences, particularly those of the United States, that threaten religious salvation promised by Islam.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I'm just sick and tired of this jack wad spouting off again and again about what's coming to us from him and his elk. I got it. He and they don't like us and they want and intend to destroy us. I'm so scared. I think it's time that he and they realize that they do not hold all the cards. He and his people have things in their homelands that can be destroyed also, a whole lot of things....
“Not a contemporary but nonetheless a highly modern voice is that of Friedrich Nietzsche, the "posthumous" man who inhabited a world post-God and beyond Good and Evil. His critique of ressentiment - the "self-poisoned mind" of resentment - fits Islam like a glove. For Nietzsche, the repressed emotion of ressentiment leads at length to an entire falsified worldview, a whole revalued code of values, a complete morality based upon sour grapes, vindictiveness, delusions of grandeur and an embittered sense of helpless inferiority. The envied enemy is hated for his superior virtues, which are transformed by the alchemy of ressentiment into objects of loathing.”………………. http://www.hvk.org/articles/1101/168.html
Why would they need to put any effort into that? Visit a school, watch a cartoon with a child, read a teenage magazine, rent a P-G13 flick, catch a half hour of NBC and you will see enough erosion of American values without a sinster plot behind it. The liberals are already winning at that. Think Katie Couric is working with a group of Islamofascists?
The only thing I'd like to clear up here is that of Arab involvement. Not all Muslims are Arab, but nearly all Arabs are Muslims. Arabic elite use Islam and it minion as a vehicle to accomplish an ends. They are filled with jealous hatred, and they use this religion to mask their ineptitude.
Care to slap the other cheek, while you're at it? That is a really low blow.
Why didn't you ask politely? I am certain nuconvert would fill you in.
Actually, this can be debated because the other "crusades" were more or less resupply missions to fortify the original Crusaders.
The first crusade was successful and Jerusalem was maintained for decades by Christianity. The problem was that Western Europe was far from being united by any single power in those days, nor was it controlled by any Pope. The best the Pope could do was to try to bring together some forces under the various local kings, lords and land barons. But never once were the Crusades a truly united effort by Christendom, as there was always infighting and power struggles amongst the leaders. The follow up Crusades to the first successful one were largely failures because they had no particular goals in mind other than to fight their way to the Holy Land with men and supplies. But they were successful in that they kept the Mohammedan barbarians on the defensive in their own land.
"The remaining six were rife with corruption, murder, rape, and perversion - at least half of which was performed by "Christian" mercinaries."
Western Europe was just emerging from the "Dark Ages", and the Crusading armies were loyal only to their local leaders, such as Tancred, Godfrey, Raymond, Bohemond. These Western Christians had seen Catholic Spain being overrun and ruled by barbaric Mohammedans for hundreds of years, so there was no love lost for their Islamic enemies. So while they marched into the land of the Infidel Mohammedans wearing the Crusader's Cross, these soldiers consisted of 90% Gallic warriors, loyal only to their own fuedal Lords. Furthermore, these Lords and local Barons and "Kings" each had their own plans and personal designs, and acted independently of each other and independently of Rome's desires. Though the ultimate goal was to secure the Holy Land, the Popes and the Vatican had no real power over these individual feudal kingdoms and their knights and warriors. The Crusaders started off with about 500,000 men, who got so badly butchered on their march to Jerusalem that their victorious assault on Jerusalem was performed by only about 15,000 surviving Crusaders, (Hillaire Belloc, "The Cursades").
"On one of the crusades, over 30,000 young boys (not men - ages six to 13) were recruited as "Holy Warriors" by Rome to carry out the Crusades."
"They were loaded up in boats, and set sail for Israel. They never made it. ALL of them were sold into slavery in Northern Africa."
More anti-Catholic, revisionist bullshit, if you'll pardon my Western expression. The boys of this mysterious event in history came from France and southern Germany, not from Rome. They were assembled and organized by a lone boy named Nicholas from Germany, who happened to be an extraordinary preacher. Here is a brief, (and factual) historical account, as written by a contempory chronicler - (emphasis mine):
"In this year occurred an outstanding thing and one much to be marveled at, for it is unheard of throughout the ages. About the time of Easter and Pentecost, without anyone having preached or called for it, and prompted by I know not what spirit, many thousands of boys, ranging in age from six years to full maturity, left the plows or carts which they were driving, the flocks which they were pasturing, and anything else which they were doing. This they did despite the wishes of their parents, relatives, and friends who sought to make them draw back. Suddenly one ran after another to take the cross. Thus, by groups of twenty, or fifty, or a hundred, they put up banners and began to journey to Jerusalem. They were asked by many people on whose advice or at whose urging they had set out upon this path. They were asked especially since only a few years ago many kings, a great many dukes, and innumerable people in powerful companies had gone there and had returned with the business unfinished. The present groups, morever, were still of tender years and were neither strong enough nor powerful enough to do anything. Everyone, therefore, accounted them foolish and imprudent for trying to do this. They briefly replied that they were equal to the Divine will in this matter and that, whatever God might wish to do with them, they would accept it willingly and with humble spirit. They thus made some little progress on their journey. Some were turned back at Metz, others at Piacenza, and others even at Rome. Still others got to Marseilles, but whether they crossed to the Holy Land or what their end was is uncertain. One thing is sure: that of the many thousands who rose up, only very few returned." (James Brundage, "The Crusades, a Documentary History").
This historical account destroys your sorry claim that "Rome" called for this event, and that Rome "placed them on boats and shipped them off", and I hope it embarrasses you sufficiently that you won't write your anti-Christian diatribes again until you get your facts right.
"The Crusades were neither holy nor were they successful."
The first Crusade was quite successful, as only 15,000 surviving Crusaders totally routed the Muslim scum who occupied and desecrated Jerusalem. The Mohmammedans even fortified Jerusalem with huge, highly trained black soldiers from Africa, but the Crusaders kicked their butts from hell to breakfast. No war is pretty, but the Crusades had a holy purpose...namely, to rid the Holy City of the unholy barbarians who were publicly desecrating the holiest places in Jerusalem.
Ditto the insane murder cultists among the "moderate" Muslims today.
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.