| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Baptist leader: If we didn't fight the Crusades ... |
| 2008-01-11 |
| ...we'd be speaking Arabic. Backlash in 3....2... |
| Posted by:Shith Unitch6180 |
| #15 "Kingdom of Heaven" was an entertaining and thoughtful movie about this era...nobody was totally clean |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-01-11 23:36 |
| #14 Saladin did let Christians live in Jerusalem Saladin faced a different situation than the Crusaders. There was no other threat to the Crusaders when they stormed Jerusalem. The Crusaders could bet it all on one big assault, even taking significant casualties. Saladin was a 'pretender' to the throne. There were others who were in the wings. If Saladin took the city at great cost to his army, another pretender would be on his throat. He couldn't afford an expensive assault. Saladin had to 'make a deal' to keep the rest of his domain in order. As for the treatment of the inhabitants of the city, what was different from any other major assaults of cities in the West? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-01-11 23:12 |
| #13 BJ8878 - your historical notes are quite accurate. The crusaders also very misguidedly sacked Constantinople thus widening the gap between east & west christianity. The massacre during the first jerusalem sacking took almost a day to complete. Many eastern Christians were murdered during that evolution. Use of religion for personal gain by the monarchy. Somethings never change. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-01-11 22:44 |
| #12 I wouldn't be that proud of crusaders. When they first set out the first thing they did was massacring the Jews in the Holy Empire who up to then had enjoyed significant liberties and protection of the emperor. Spain was a Visigoth rural miserable place when the Arabs invaded. The majority of the peasant population welcomed the Arabs because their life was saddled with oppressive taxation imposed by the small Visigoth elite. In the 10th century Cordoba was about the most civilized place to live in Europe. Caliph Abd ar Rahman III was about the most enlightened ruler in Europe. He employed Christians and Jews as his principal advisers. That was then. This paradise was not destroyed by Christians but by religious fanatics from Morocco. The crusaders storming Jerusalem killed all Muslims and Jews in the Holy City, even quite a few Christians. It was fanatism and stupidity on both sides that led to all these wars and useless destructions... as always. The crusaders didn't tolerate a single Muslim in Jerusalem. Saladin did let Christians live in Jerusalem and made it possible by treaty that Christians could freely visit the Holy Sites. The Christian Spanish kings did have their moments of tolerance as well. Just look at the synagogues of Toledo or the palace of Peter the Cruel in Sevilla. It's not all black and white. Destructive Islamic fanatism that flared up time and again led to the downfall of what could have been a real advanced Muslim civilization And Europe's advance would have been faster without the wars of religion, the 30 years war and so on. |
| Posted by: Beldar Jique8878 2008-01-11 21:25 |
| #11 As soon as we get that apology for abdur rahmin's pre-emptive invasion into France back in the 700s. Honestly, I could give a rat's-arse what these dorks apologize for. None of them represent my gov't or me. I have 761 grains of sorry for the islamo-nuts. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-01-11 21:07 |
| #10 The PATRIARCH OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH also has a thing to say on the Net. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-01-11 20:07 |
| #9 The Catholic High School my oldest two went to had as their mascot a "Crusader". (Sniff) I'm so proud. (wipes tear) |
| Posted by: GORT 2008-01-11 19:52 |
| #8 Apologizing for the Crusades? Nuts! (A la Screaming Eagles) Let Muslims apologize first for teh centuroes of Jihad and its atrocities. Like the taking of Cesarea where they ran in teh streets carrying the guts of teh defenders. Or of the invasiopn of Spain where teh Muslims chronicler tells with obvious joy and pride that 30,000 (thirt thousand) women of great beauty were captured and sold into slavery. Now if their future had invoilved just cleaning dishes their beauty was irrelevant. Its only irrelevant when you enslave them for raping. Let's have them apologize. And pay one million dollars and an oil well per girl. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-01-11 18:02 |
| #7 Ayatollah Khomeini, the dictator of Iran, called a world conference to seek a solution to the turmoil in the Middle East. And in the palace that once belonged to the Shah they prepared a beautiful, elaborate state dinner to which the delegates of the world conference were invited. When the time came for them to arrive, the Ayatollah Khomeini demanded that the women cover themselves in black veils. They refused, and the conference fell apart. That elaborate dinner was never eaten. The food was never touched. There was not a speech made. There was not a discussion held. There will be no discussion, until you submit to ISLAM. And that means to apologize for standing up against ISLAM during the Crusades. THAT is what these dhimmis have done. Signed, sealed and delivered to who are now their overlords, the Imams of Islam. |
| Posted by: www 2008-01-11 13:44 |
| #6 On the other hand if they'd actually planned the thing properly instead of going after Jerusalem... For example if the Crusaders liberated Spain a few centuriers earlier and pushed occupied North Africa. If they helped the Byzantines and kept Anatolia from falling... they could have rolled back Islam in a sustainable way rather than just occupying a chunk of the Holy Land for awhile. The final push on Jerusalem would have been easier than as well. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-01-11 13:26 |
| #5 "but the signed statement he is referring to is a start if real dialogue toward peace in the ME is going is to be achieved." Danielle What a fool. "Take NOT the Christian or the Jew as your friend and protector." Koran "Can't we talk about this" Theo Van Goehs last words as a Mohammedan drove a knife deep into his chest. |
| Posted by: www 2008-01-11 13:12 |
| #4 yes, because signing meaningless documents apologizing only for the sins of Christians is so meaningful in preventing Islamist extremists from lighting off in a crowd of young infidels. |
| Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-11 13:09 |
| #3 "Describing the Christian letter of goodwill to Muslim as ‘unwise,’ he argued the letter was inherently flawed because as Christians, we were called to be witnessed for Jesus Christ, the Son of God for whom God has bestowed all authority on earth and in heaven, and he is not merely a prophet." Mohler Bout time the truth came out. Talking straight up will kill this anti-Crusades garbage. atel saved the West. I am demanding apology from the Muslims for invading Europe in the first place. |
| Posted by: www 2008-01-11 13:07 |
| #2 He stated it was wrong to associate the actions of the United States of America to that of the Christian church. I agree with that statement, as America has a separation of the Catholic Church and state for a good reason. Unfortunately, AQ doesn't make the same distinction, considering us all Crusaders and why America is a target. I will not apologize or compromise for being an American Christian, but the signed statement he is referring to is a start if real dialogue toward peace in the ME is going is to be achieved. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-01-11 13:02 |
| #1 Will these liberal ass-hats please shut up and stick to preaching the bible instead of politics which they know nothing about. Please? Otherwise defrock their asses and make them work for a living. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-01-11 12:13 |