Modern Aftermath of the Crusades (islam and the west)

Aina.org ^ | 3/12/2006 | Staff

[Cronos]

The Crusades were defensive actions, the WoT is offensive --- and that's the way the Crusades SHOULD have been.

[Lancer_N3502A]

Excellent link!

[Antoninus]

Good post. It's long past due for the world to remember even a fraction of the atrocities committed in the name of the false prophet Mohammed.

[Antoninus]

The crusades did more to destroy the Byzantine Empire than the Turks.

Uh, no.

[livius]

The system is structurally incapable of allowing real leaders to rise to the top.

That's a good point. I suppose, on the other hand, there won't be much structure left if we have a really serious attack. Not that I'm saying that's a good thing - but the rules might change. However, if it's "just" a few thousand deaths, things will go on as usual, and we'll simply bury and forget about the dead and sit back to wait for another attack.

[SaltyJoe]

"the killing of Jews by the Crusaders"

Jesus never told Christians to kill Jews just as The G-d of Abraham never told Scribes and Pharisees to kill Jesus.

Those who condemned Jesus to execution are long since dead. Those who've killed civilians in times of Crusader history have also pasted into G-d's Judgment.

Much has been done by Western nations to limit "collateral damage" as much as possible. Today's Christians are not the Christians of last millennium or even 5 decades ago. Today's soldiering closely resembles police work more than the total warfare mankind's history is noted for--especially in the Old Testament.

[DariusBane]

Really?

[DariusBane]

I love two word replies because they do so much to create a thesis and defend it, as I defended my thesis in subsequent posts. However IF, and I emphasis IF (because it is very difficult for me to respond to your challenge to my thesis) you are having a knee jerk conservative response, Arabs bad, Crusades good, then we do have a disagreement. The times of the crusades were very complicated politically, in fact they were byzantine in their complexities. Factions upon factions. But if you are arguing that the fourth crusade did not bring about a 200 year decline to the empire you are not studying your history. Lets do better than "uh no".

[USF]

Thanks for the ping DS.

Robert Spencer nails it again. The crusades were a response to mohammedan aggression. Typical islamic MO: Start aggression and then whine about victimhood while pleading to the rest of the ummah for help when they have their a$$es handed back to them on a platter.

All these years later they are still twisting history and facts for their propaganda. What else do you expect from an delusional belief system that has to maintain lies in order to survive. Pfftt.

[Antoninus]

The crusades did more to destroy the Byzantine Empire than the Turks.

That was your statement. It's ridiculous on its face and doesn't deserve much more than a two word answer.

The Sack of 1204 was a terrible blot on the Crusading movement and did much to weaken the Empire. But it did not do more than 400 years of incessant Turkish/Islamic attack. To even posit the idea is ludicrous.

[DariusBane]

I stand by my statement that the fourth crusade ended the Byzantine Empire. Am I arguing that the Turks had no hand in it? Hardly. However the inability of the Christain world to overcome the divisive religious schisms of the day ended the Byzantine Empire. The muslim world took advantage of the weakned and divided Christain world. The Forth Crusade saw the wealth of the Byzantine Empire carted off piecemiel to Rome and Vienna. It never recovered. You are arguing that I discount the barbaric nature of Islam, and the wanton descrution it caused. We are on the same side as I am sure you would take a hard line towards the islamofacist we face today. But don't underestimate or discount the ruinious fourth crusade and it's long term effect on the christain world. Regards

[steve8714]

When you die, the term "day" ceases to have meaning.

[Dark Skies]

You are correct, but it is easier to speak in terms of the dimension we can comprehend that to develop a language for that which is incomprehensible (if that were even possible).