What About Those Terrible Crusades?

[zaangalewa]

Hitler and the Nazis were all Roman Catholics.

Quatsch (=nonsense). The Nazis had less than nothing to do with the catholic church, how everyone knows who studies the Nazis. Shortest argument: It were not bishops of the catholic church who entered continously the headquarters of Hitler. The main ideology of the Nazis based on imperialism and darwinism. Jeremiah: Your hate against the holy catholic church makes you blind. Don't try to become a blind leader of blind people - what's a much better description of the times under Hitler in Germany and Europe.

 

[zaangalewa]

That is the history of Roman Catholicism. Not Christianity, Moonglow. The woman strung up was most likely a Christian
or Jew who refused to convert to Catholicism.

If you be Jew living in Europe, you had to pay a special tax, just like the Muslims, wearing a special piece of clothe or emblem to show the public which religion you twas.......Or you were either killed in a purge of those not godly in Christ, or exiled from the land you lived.....And this happened all the while Protestant and Catholics rules Europe...

Everyone had a kind of uniform in the middle ages depending on his function for the society and position within the society - and "tax" was only limited by the fantasy of the mighty people.

 

[zaangalewa]

Hitler and the Nazis were all Roman Catholics. You're mistaken. The Protestants were not ruling Europe. Ex-Jesuits have admitted (after becoming born again Christians) that the Vatican plan was for many of their people to "pretend to be Protestants" in order to destroy the relationship between Jew and Christian which had been great up until that point. You need to read some Avro Manhattan books on the real history of Catholicism and WWII.

The protestants controlled England, and parts of German areas to include France also....That is what caused so many wars for many years in Europe..Catholics and protestants killing each other in the Lord's name.....what a shame...

The so called "crusades" were some hundred years earlier. (By the way: Most "crusades" had nothing to do with fights against Muslims. This was often only an expression for "war": Still today are calling people a fight against a bad thing "crusade".)

And what you call "shame" is specially the thirty years war (1618-1648). This european war on german territory had a lot to do with fights of Protestants against Catholics - but sometimes Proestants fought against Protestants and Catholics against Catholics in this war too. Nevertheless this war is the only war I would call a war on religous reasons in the history of Europe. This war was by the way not lost or won - it was solved. It ended with an agreement: the peace of Westfalia.

 

[zaangalewa]

Hitler was German. Not English.

Don't be astonished. That's the same - depending wether someone is using a national state doctrine for the people or a doctrine of genealogy. Hitler was by the way an Austrian - but that's also the same depending wether someone ...

 

[zaangalewa]

When will the fundy nutters stop defending their cannibalistic forebears?

Crusades and Jihad are the exact same thing, so Muslims have no moral standing to condemn the Crusades.

Exactly. A crusade is a little jihad. But everyone thinks an enemy is always morally wrong. And it's indeed wrong to misuse god for wars. God is almighty. There's no need for god to defend himselve nor to be defended from his people. By the way: Germans (=Normans, Frankonians, English ...) often prefered in history to use methods of their enemies, what's maybe often only a sideeffect, because we study normally our enemies first before we start to attack them. Knight Templars were for example our form of Shaolin Monks.

 

[alang1216]

Look how awesome North America is because of it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I doubt the Aztec or Inca would think this is a better place.

IF this is a serious opinion, regardless I'm sure it's seriously shared by others, it justifies Muslim Jihad, both in the past and that of today. If the end is a purified world, following the word of God, then the means are justified. I'm sure the Conquistadors, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would all agree that their ends justified their means.

 

[alang1216]

If your going to be a pragmatist at least be in this century, I thought you people always want everything NOW, but you want to go back to the 1400's Spain's terror invasion of the new world...

"you people"?

Curiously, Islam is now about 1,400 years old, about the age as Christianity was when it entered the New World.

 

[zaangalewa]

Look how awesome North America is because of it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I doubt the Aztec or Inca would think this is a better place.

IF this is a serious opinion, regardless I'm sure it's seriously shared by others, it justifies Muslim Jihad, both in the past and that of today. If the end is a purified world, following the word of God, then the means are justified. I'm sure the Conquistadors, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would all agree that their ends justified their means.

Conquistadores? The conquistadores were often heavily attacked from monks of the catholic church. Why do you compare the Conquistadores in context with a completly different situation of history hundreds of years later?

 

[zaangalewa]

If your going to be a pragmatist at least be in this century, I thought you people always want everything NOW, but you want to go back to the 1400's Spain's terror invasion of the new world...

"you people"?

Curiously, Islam is now about 1,400 years old, about the age as Christianity was when it entered the New World.

The christian religion was about 1500 years old when Martin Waldseemüller named the new continents "America" in 1507. What's the New World of the Islam today?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Typical Muslim apologist when you talk about jihad and terrorist attacks brought on by a belief in the words of the Koran. Well, this five minute piece with an excellent video lays out the truth!

And, as always, it ain't pretty. And it links to previous pieces that explained how Christian kings were simply defending themselves and freeing their people from the relentless religious persecution by Muslims.

Let's see how the Islamists try to debunk this @ Take Five Minutes And Watch The Spread Of Islam Via Jihad Before The Crusades ⋆ Dc Gazette

I'm sure the English kings who went on the Crusades weren't going there to defends themselves from Islam which was thousands of miles away, and this was before planes.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Typical Muslim apologist when you talk about jihad and terrorist attacks brought on by a belief in the words of the Koran. Well, this five minute piece with an excellent video lays out the truth!

And, as always, it ain't pretty. And it links to previous pieces that explained how Christian kings were simply defending themselves and freeing their people from the relentless religious persecution by Muslims.

Let's see how the Islamists try to debunk this @ Take Five Minutes And Watch The Spread Of Islam Via Jihad Before The Crusades ⋆ Dc Gazette

I'm sure the English kings who went on the Crusades weren't going there to defends themselves from Islam which was thousands of miles away, and this was before planes.

And, you would surely be mistaken.

 

[alang1216]

Conquistadores? The conquistadores were often heavily attacked from monks of the catholic church. Why do you compare the Conquistadores in context with a completly different situation of history hundreds of years later?

If I recall my history correctly the Conquistadores had the blessings of the Pope to convert the pagans, I never heard of any being heavily attacked from monks.
Conquistadores brought their religion at the point of the sword. Doesn't sound so different to me.

 

[alang1216]

Typical Muslim apologist when you talk about jihad and terrorist attacks brought on by a belief in the words of the Koran. Well, this five minute piece with an excellent video lays out the truth!

And, as always, it ain't pretty. And it links to previous pieces that explained how Christian kings were simply defending themselves and freeing their people from the relentless religious persecution by Muslims.

Let's see how the Islamists try to debunk this @ Take Five Minutes And Watch The Spread Of Islam Via Jihad Before The Crusades ⋆ Dc Gazette

I'm sure the English kings who went on the Crusades weren't going there to defends themselves from Islam which was thousands of miles away, and this was before planes.

The first Crusade was against European Jews, they never even met any Muslims.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Typical Muslim apologist when you talk about jihad and terrorist attacks brought on by a belief in the words of the Koran. Well, this five minute piece with an excellent video lays out the truth!

And, as always, it ain't pretty. And it links to previous pieces that explained how Christian kings were simply defending themselves and freeing their people from the relentless religious persecution by Muslims.

Let's see how the Islamists try to debunk this @ Take Five Minutes And Watch The Spread Of Islam Via Jihad Before The Crusades ⋆ Dc Gazette

I'm sure the English kings who went on the Crusades weren't going there to defends themselves from Islam which was thousands of miles away, and this was before planes.

And, you would surely be mistaken.

Would I? No, I don't think so.

Why Medieval People went on Crusades

"There are four main reasons why people in the medieval ages went on crusades: One, people went on Crusades because they wanted to take back Jerusalem by reason that they thought that it was rightfully theirs since it is there where Jesus died. Second, some people did it for honour, revenge or love. Third, the people wanted their sins to be forgiven, to go to heaven or to take back goods from the Holy Lands or because they had committed a crime and were forced by the church to go on a Crusade. And some people just went on Crusades for fun."

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Typical Muslim apologist when you talk about jihad and terrorist attacks brought on by a belief in the words of the Koran. Well, this five minute piece with an excellent video lays out the truth!

And, as always, it ain't pretty. And it links to previous pieces that explained how Christian kings were simply defending themselves and freeing their people from the relentless religious persecution by Muslims.

Let's see how the Islamists try to debunk this @ Take Five Minutes And Watch The Spread Of Islam Via Jihad Before The Crusades ⋆ Dc Gazette

I'm sure the English kings who went on the Crusades weren't going there to defends themselves from Islam which was thousands of miles away, and this was before planes.

And, you would surely be mistaken.

Would I? No, I don't think so.

Why Medieval People went on Crusades

"There are four main reasons why people in the medieval ages went on crusades: One, people went on Crusades because they wanted to take back Jerusalem by reason that they thought that it was rightfully theirs since it is there where Jesus died. Second, some people did it for honour, revenge or love. Third, the people wanted their sins to be forgiven, to go to heaven or to take back goods from the Holy Lands or because they had committed a crime and were forced by the church to go on a Crusade. And some people just went on Crusades for fun."

The Muslims invaded Europe 300 years before the first crusade.

 

[Syriusly]

Typical Muslim apologist when you talk about jihad and terrorist attacks brought on by a belief in the words of the Koran. Well, this five minute piece with an excellent video lays out the truth!

And, as always, it ain't pretty. And it links to previous pieces that explained how Christian kings were simply defending themselves and freeing their people from the relentless religious persecution by Muslims

Tell me exactly how Christian Kings were simply defending themselves when they sacked Christian Constantinople?

Fourth Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The crusaders inflicted a savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient Greco-Roman and medieval Byzantine works of art were either stolen or destroyed. The magnificent Library of Constantinople was destroyed. Many of the civilians of the city were slaughtered, raped and looted. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's churches and monasteries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared.[47][48] It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks. The Venetians received 150,000 silver marks that was their due, while the crusaders received 50,000 silver marks. A further 100,000 silver marks were divided evenly up between the crusaders and Venetians. The remaining 500,000 silver marks were secretly kept back by many crusader knights.


You are just another Christian apologist

 

[Syriusly]

Hitler and the Nazis were all Roman Catholics.

The story of the 100 years war was the story of Protestants and Catholics leading armies that killed mostly peasants because those peasants rulers belonged to the 'wrong' flavor of Christianity.

There is lots to blame on Catholics of the era but Protestants were not saints either.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Typical Muslim apologist when you talk about jihad and terrorist attacks brought on by a belief in the words of the Koran. Well, this five minute piece with an excellent video lays out the truth!

And, as always, it ain't pretty. And it links to previous pieces that explained how Christian kings were simply defending themselves and freeing their people from the relentless religious persecution by Muslims.

Let's see how the Islamists try to debunk this @ Take Five Minutes And Watch The Spread Of Islam Via Jihad Before The Crusades ⋆ Dc Gazette

I'm sure the English kings who went on the Crusades weren't going there to defends themselves from Islam which was thousands of miles away, and this was before planes.

And, you would surely be mistaken.

Would I? No, I don't think so.

Why Medieval People went on Crusades

"There are four main reasons why people in the medieval ages went on crusades: One, people went on Crusades because they wanted to take back Jerusalem by reason that they thought that it was rightfully theirs since it is there where Jesus died. Second, some people did it for honour, revenge or love. Third, the people wanted their sins to be forgiven, to go to heaven or to take back goods from the Holy Lands or because they had committed a crime and were forced by the church to go on a Crusade. And some people just went on Crusades for fun."

The Muslims invaded Europe 300 years before the first crusade.

Yes, and? What does this have to do with the debate?

You think a king in England would go to the other side of Europe to fight Muslims because they had invaded Europe? I don't think so.

Where were they all when the Muslims invaded SPAIN? Oh, no where, they left it to the Spanish. And that was a lot closer to England than the religious center of Christianity.

 

[zaangalewa]

The Crusades were in response to the invasion by the Muslims. The hammer saved France and most of Europe from domination in France or Islam would have taken Europe. Just as it took Northern Africa and Spain. The Muslims trying to force their religion down the rest of the world's throats was why the Crusades moved into Jersusalem.

What was the justification for the forced conversions of North and South America? Looks to me like a brutal Christian Jihad.

I guess that's a wrong view. Specially the immune system of the read indians was the greatest problem when white murderous idiots like Columbus came. Millions died on biological reasons. Some people from Europe liked to see only animals in red Indians, because animals had no rights - nevertheless christian monks tried to baptize as many red indians as possible. This was in this time of history a way to make them to children of god - to human beings. It was a way to give them rights. Don't forget please: the people in those time thought in completly different ways than we are doing it today. Neverthelless we see there not only a murderous greed and an extreme barbarism - we see also a lot of humanity.

Today I'm not sure - but from my point of view the red indians in Southamerica are a much more important part of the populations of South America than red indians are an importnat part of the genetcis of the people in the northern continent of America. The so called "melting pot USA" is in my eyes more like a nation of parallel populations - that's why the USA needs an extreme nationalism as a common element between all this different groups. But in South America seems often to exist a real genetic flow between the so called Whites, Reds and Blacks. The people there are often very fascinating in their very natural grace and beauty.

 

[zaangalewa]

Hitler and the Nazis were all Roman Catholics.

The story of the 100 years war was the story of Protestants and Catholics leading armies that killed mostly peasants because those peasants rulers belonged to the 'wrong' flavor of Christianity.

There is lots to blame on Catholics of the era but Protestants were not saints either.

Hundred years war? ... one moment please ... 1337-1453 ... was a time when the english kings liked to possess the French throne. Both "nations" were Catholics in those day. I guess we could call this "hundred years war" also a "hundred years joke".