Thanks Midas, you reminded me of a few other reasons I dont like her besides the fact that she is a religious crusader. No one who wants to fight for any god should be in power. No shock she is the apple of your eye. As I have said...the reasons she appeals to extremists like you is the same reason she doesn't appeal to moderates and sensible people. I have read quite a bit about the crusades and if you think they were about 'Muslim animals attacking Christians' (again, you disgust me with your ignorance but I assume this is on purpose, you get more attention) you are simplifying an extremely complicated subject to the nth degree. This is, of course, no shock as you are an extremist and see the world in very limited capacity...stark black and white. Certainly you wouldn't have a driving, burning passionate, all consuming bias which causes you to rant and rave incessantly. Lets see if I can start you ranting and turn this thread into yet another Muslim hate fest and trigger you to start color coding and cut and pasting: The crusades were an excuse for western second sons of royalty to conquer new lands and set up kingdoms. The western Christians were hostile to the eastern Christians, whom they saw as heretics, until they saw a chance to rape pillage and loot and that's exactly what they did. They all of a sudden became 'brothers' to the hated eastern church and set off to protect Christianity from the Mohamedian...but not before dealing with the scourge they identified as a thousand times worse than the mohomedian...those who lived among them...thats right...the Jews...ever heard of the first holocaust? It happen right before the crusades...the first whole sale slaughter of Jews at the hands of radical Christians who saw them as 'killers of Christ' So after killing a bunch of Jews they march over to fight the Islamic threat for those heretics who are now their friends...They bounce around and set up minor outreemer kingdoms. Much of the reason for them going was to get them out of Europe, the great Christian knights are well documented as having been base thugs used as muscle for criminal enterprise like extortion and highway robbery...they did more harm than good when not engaged in war so it was best to direct them at something outside Europe. In the end...they sacked Constantinople, killed and raped the citizens and stole priceless artifacts made of gold and jewels as well as religious artifacts. They ruled Constantinople for what? 50-100 years? Then they are pushed out. So the crusaders in fact sacked the great Christian city they were supposed to be protecting from the Muslim menace...long before the Muslims could...so now much of Constantinople's treasure have been melted down and adorn churches and buildings in Venice and other European cities...and Constantinople ended up wishing they had dealt with the Muslims on their own. Yeah...I should go read a little history...there are eye witness accounts of the sacking of Constantinople by the Christian crusaders...and many Byzantine writers who lament ever calling for their help. Or real historical accounts of all the various crusades that became more and more about enriching themselves than anything have to do with religion....they were only about religion to the poor suckers who left their farms to fight...never for those who called on them. As most people realize that holy war, including the crusades, is seldom about religion.
There is ample evidence as to the cause of the Crusades. The bottom line is the people of Europe became tired of the continual incursons of "true" muslims into their society and these muslim attempts to put them under islamic domination...as per the koran and the life and actions of their terrorist prophet. So these infidels decided to fight back and drive these jihadists out of their countries. They asked for help and they received it from non-muslims who saw islam for what it is. I guess is was ok in your eyes for "true" muslims to invade other countries with the goal to and force their islam down and across the throats of non-muslims. But what happens??...muslim apologists gripe and complain to be victums when the tables are turned when a non-muslims fight back against the FORCED expansion of islam with all of its koranic laws and sharia way of life. So typical... But go ahead and defend the madness of islam...past, present and the future
Um a bit like Catholics invading Latin America and forcing Christianity down the throats of the natives I guess Or the European Christians forcably converting Jews with the threat of death? Or was there some difference that I am unaware of? Forgot to mention the forced conversion of Muslims to Christianity LOL Dont believe me then check out the history of the reconquest of Spain.
By the time of the first crusades there were no Muslim incursions into Europe...if you knew about the history there...the Muslims were attacking lands held by the Byzantines who were in Turkey controlled by Constantinople. This was, in essence, the eastern roman empire in decline...Its decline was the loss of lands it had taken by force, they were losing territory not just to Muslims but other Christian kingdoms on the western side (Bulgarian Kingdoms I think) These lands were a buffer between Europe and the Muslims thus to say there were Muslim incursions into Europe at the time would be completely false...they no longer had access to Europe. Certainly it wasn't right for Muslim armies to attack lands held by Constantinople but of course Constantinople had made incursion into Muslim held lands quite often as well...so it was a back and forth between Eastern Christians and Muslim...Muslims simply won this back and forth so the Eastern Christians called on the west for aid...Western nations have attacked other nations whether they be in the east or right next door...so many times you couldnt possibly list them all. Nations attacked nations...Rome attacked Persia, Persia attacked Rome...Italy attacked France...France attacked Russia...Western nations took african nations, etc..etc.. right or wrong, they all made war and they all had their reasons. Over and over again...nations attack other nations... Now as I said before...The western Christians saw the Eastern Christians as heretics and they had clashed in the past with no clear winner. So there was no love lost. When the East called on the west to help protect them...this gave the west the perfect opportunity to attack the east and give them something to do with their knights who were causing trouble in Europe because of a lack of war. They had become thugs and highway men. This also gave the second sons of royalty a chance to go out and set up their own little kingdoms...which they did....outreemer. Of course the East would regret asking the west for help as the barbaric Europeans (Byzantine label for crusaders, not mine) sacked the very lands they were supposed to be defending and murdered and raped the people they were there to protect. This was after they slaughtered the Jews living in their lands in Europe (they called them killers of Christ, more abhorrent the Mohamedian). If the crusaders were looking to 'save' the Christians from the evil Muslims...they sure did a great job...instead of letting the Muslims take Constantinople, they sacked it instead...so I guess at least the Muslims didn't get it...no matter though...they couldn't hold the outreemer kingdoms for more that 100 years and they couldnt even hold Constantinople which was taken from them by Bulgarians...but the crusaders DID weaken Constantinople to make it easy pickings for the Muslims in the end... But most people are very aware they were there for just this type of thing, wealth and land...they never cared about saving Constantinople and Eastern Heretic Christians Speros Vryonis in Byzantium and Europe gives a vivid account of the sack of Constantinople by the Frankish and Venetian Crusaders The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a ***** who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention. http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html You can tell they were on a mission from god
Crusades Muslim apologist make the accusation that only the Europeans launched a Crusade. Muslims seem to forget that they had their own "Crusade or Holy War", for several centuries before and AFTER the Europeans launched theirs as a defense against the islamic expansion. It may surprise you that your terrorist prophet mohammad himself was the first to launch his holy wars that are still going on today!. As early as 630 A.D, after his conquest of Mecca earlier in the year, muhammad (spit on him) launches a "holy war" to Tabuk, a city in the north of Saudi Arabia today, but in the seventh century it was under the control of northern tribes. I use the word the term "holy war", because early muslim sources say the muslim army had 30,000 men and 10,000 horsemen and because muhammad did so under the banner of Islam. On his way north, your terrorist prophet muhammad extracts (or extorts) "agreements"—without provocation—from smaller Christian arab tribes to pay the jizyah (poll) tax, instead of being attacked and killed. As today, a jizya tax is exacted from non-muslims for the "privilege" of living under Islam. This is the religion of "peace" that you defend! Remember...this ACTION falls in line with Koran itself. See Sura 9:29 for yourself. Ask any head-banging 5 times per day muslim! Remember...infidels had the option to convert at this time, but most of them did not and agreed, rather, to pay the tax (extortion). So it is Muhammad himself who inspired the first and today's generations of Muslims to carry out his "holy wars" that have been going on for 1,300 years! Now use some logic...Besides following this terrorist prophet, why else did the muslims launch their "holy wars" out of Arabian penisula in the first place? Weren't they happy in Arabia? The muslim "holy wars" in fact lasted several centuries before the European Crusades because "True" muslims assert that islam’s mission is to correct the injustices of the world. What they have in mind is that if Islam does not control a society, then injustice dominates it. But wait a minute...if Islam dominates it, then justice rules it (again, all this is found in the koran vol. 7, pp. 8-15). Islam is expansionist and must conquer the whole world to express allah’s perfect will on this planet...this is the belief behind "true" muslims. But what has happened as islam has conquered and forced conversions to this madness over these conquests? History has proven that over the centuries until now, islam does not represent justice. People, especially women, are oppressed in Islamic lands. These lands are some of the worst places on this Earth. Back to the Crusades, Pope Urban II in 1095 had enough of muslims robbing and raping Christians as they made their way to the holy lands. It was finally time to war against these muslim animals in response to muslim aggression that had been going on for centuries. Another matter you forgot to mention, the Medieval Crusader's purpose was NOT to force conversions. Now I agree that Medieval Crusaders did not always act exemplarily or that they sometimes forced conversions. 11th century warfare was pretty bloody stuff. Remember...There is nothing in the Bible that forces unbelievers to convert as you find scattered throughout the koran. The koran is clear on this while there is nothing in Christian texts about forcing one to follow their religion. You can't ignore that in the "true" muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality. In contrast, it was muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not in fact wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely...just like before Crusades during the Crusades and almost a 1,000 years AFTER the Crusades. Their actions and history ARE clear on this...now we...today have to deal with this islamic madeness!
Nice going Drusus. Giving this muslim dog another platform to spew his crud. But wait! we could post a thread about homeless puppies, and this mook would spin it into muslim tripe.
