I Knew 4 Years Ago This Would Happen

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
The more I read, the more I realized 'we' had been taught revisionist history, before it was popular, regarding The Crusades. Seems the Vatican is moving in lifting the veil:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2093921,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World

Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades
From Richard Owen in Rome

THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.

The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders”.

The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim- Christian reconciliation by asking “pardon” for the Crusades during the 2000 Millennium celebrations. But John Paul’s apologies for the past “errors of the Church” — including the Inquisition and anti-Semitism — irritated some Vatican conservatives. According to Vatican insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Pope Benedict reached out to Muslims and Jews after his election and called for dialogue. However, the Pope, who is due to visit Turkey in November, has in the past suggested that Turkey’s Muslim culture is at variance with Europe’s Christian roots.

At the conference, held at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, Roberto De Mattei, an Italian historian, recalled that the Crusades were “a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the Holy Places”.

“The debate has been reopened,
” La Stampa said. Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 had helped to provoke the First Crusade at the end of the 11th century, called by Pope Urban II.

He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”. He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades “do not know their history”. Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott’s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as “utter nonsense”.

Professor Riley-Smith said that the script, like much writing on the Crusades, was “historically inaccurate. It depicts the Muslims as civilised and the Crusaders as barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” It fuels Islamic fundamentalism by propagating “Osama bin Laden’s version of history”.

He said that the Crusaders were sometimes undisciplined and capable of acts of great cruelty. But the same was true of Muslims and of troops in “all ideological wars”. Some of the Crusaders’ worst excesses were against Orthodox Christians or heretics — as in the sack of Constantinople in 1204.


The American writer Robert Spencer, author of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, told the conference that the mistaken view had taken hold in the West as well as the Arab world that the Crusades were “an unprovoked attack by Europe on the Islamic world”. In reality, however, Christians had been persecuted after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.

CONFLICT OVER THE HOLY LAND
# Historians count eight Crusades, although dates are disputed: 1095-1101, called by Pope Urban II; 1145-47, led by Louis VII; 1188-92, led by Richard I; 1204, which included the sack of Constantinople; 1217, which included the conquest of Damietta; 1228-29 led by Frederick II; 1249-52, led by King Louis IX of France; and 1270, also under Louis IX

# Until the early 11th century, Christians, Jews and Muslims coexisted under Muslim rule in the Holy Land. After growing friction, the first Crusade was sparked by ambushes of Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius appealed to Pope Urban II, who in 1095 called on Christendom to take up arms to free the Holy Land from the “Muslim infidel”
 
Links at site

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=419

March 20, 2006
Finally, A Pope Who Is Actually A Pope
Technorati Good News

(Via LC & IB LGF)

THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.

What? Somebody over there has decided to open an actual history book as opposed to groveling before the revisionists? Will wonders never cease?

Nice and utterly predictable use of sneer quotes, by the way. His Majesty can already see the oh-so-nuanced fuckweasels of The Times cringe and squirm at the notion that anything can be considered “noble.” Not that we can blame them. They’ve been out of touch with the concept for so long now that we very much doubt that they even know what the word means anymore.

The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders”.

And His Majesty doesn’t give a moldy falafel what those barbarian dune monkeys think or believe. Those are the same brainwashed buttrangers who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are real and that the Holocaust never happened, after all.

Yes, the Crusades were acts of violence, no doubt about it, but somehow contemporary “history” books always fail to mention the centuries of aggressive, expansionist muslim violence that preceded them.

So the whining little windbags are basically complaining that the Crusaders fought back. Not surprisingly, considering that muslims tend to get their scrawny little asses kicked off their camels about ten seconds, on average, after their desired victims decide to defend themselves.

And we don’t give a shit. Let them whine. It’s like fucking music to our ears.

The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim- Christian reconciliation by asking “pardon” for the Crusades during the 2000 Millennium celebrations. But John Paul’s apologies for the past “errors of the Church” — including the Inquisition and anti-Semitism — irritated some Vatican conservatives.

Note how The Times cleverly suggests that the Evil Conservatives of the Vatican™ had a problem with Pope Prickless Pussy apologizing for the Inquisition and anti-Semitism as well. If it’d been any less obvious, it might even have worked too.

According to Vatican insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Pope Benedict reached out to Muslims and Jews after his election and called for dialogue. However, the Pope, who is due to visit Turkey in November, has in the past suggested that Turkey’s Muslim culture is at variance with Europe’s Christian roots.

Just ask the Byzantine. Oh wait, you can’t. Guess why.

At the conference, held at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, Roberto De Mattei, an Italian historian, recalled that the Crusades were “a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the Holy Places”.

“The debate has been reopened,” La Stampa said. Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 had helped to provoke the First Crusade at the end of the 11th century, called by Pope Urban II.

He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”. He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades “do not know their history”.

Not only do they not know their history, the only area in which they have some measure of expertise is in the art of prostrating themselves in front of aggressors, begging them to kill them as painlessly as possible.

Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott’s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as “utter nonsense”.

The Professor is entirely too kind.

In the meantime, here’s a book suggestion to those of you who’d like an introduction to the real history of the Crusades and the Religion of Pus.

Unlike what you may have read in school, this book contains actual facts.

And G-d Bless Pope Benedict XVI for being a Christian rather than a waffly windsock wimp like so many other church leaders.

Maybe His Majesty needs to become a Catholic.
Posted by Emperor Darth Misha I @ 12:35 pm
 
Abbey Normal said:
Great post, Kath. It's a keeper.

And that second article has just the right amount of sarcasm for me!
Yeah, I hesitate to post from that blog, for fear his words might upset some! I like his take though.
 
Well done Kathianne! Its really upsets me to see how history teacher depict history these days. Its so politically correct, it make me sick. The movie Kingdom of Heaven, was a joke. I know there is a director's cut with almost an hour added back in to the movie coming out in May 2006. I wonder if it will still have the politically correct view? Islam was attacking the roots of Christianity long before the Moors in Spain and the 1st Crusade. Its funny that the history teachers always say it was the invading Christian armies from Europe that started the war in the Holy Land. But they never go into the build up to the Islam religion in Spain, France and other European countries prior to the 1st crusade. How many small town in Europe were forced to convert to Islam or be put to death by the sword. But no they will never tell you that because true Islam is a peaceful religion. Yea right! Thank God for the Crusades and the many men and women back then who fought for their freedoms.
 

Attachments

  • $tmplar01.jpg
    $tmplar01.jpg
    30.5 KB · Views: 53
Don't worry about upsetting some. You are never concerned with upsetting those that disagree with you. I digress.

You "like his take" on this subject. Might I remind you, it's only his "take" or opinion. He lays no foundation or historical insight, just a new or at least until now unobserved and unsubstantiated claim.

Warmongers and War supporters never cease to amaze me. None of them know crap about the devastation and murder of WAR but they can excuse every devastation or murder (if it suits their agenda) in the name of heroics that they (themselves) cannot demonstrate.

Take this from an old VETERAN OF WAR, Kathianne, please. There will never be a legit excuse for this WAR ON IRAQ as there has never been any legit excuse for the War in Viet Nam as participated by the United States of America including me. Get it?

I've said before, I'll repeat it here and probably many times again. I did the 1991 War against Saddam Hussein and his intentions and his cohorts (he didn't really have many cohorts as evidenced by the very quick VICTORY WE achieved there). I didn't complain in 1991 and I still don't complain about the '91 thing or my own participation in Viet Nam. But living is also learning. Get that as well?

I was opposed from the get go on this WAR ON IRAQ and I continue my opposition. I was never opposed to the WAR IN VIET NAM as a youg man. I went and did my duty, came back and got an education about the reasons I ever went there in the first place.

I don't believe for a second that any American has any DUTY whatsoever to protect the conveniences of the oil industries or embellish the profits of the Halliburton's etc. of this world. Let the political differences in Iraq take care of themselves as I expect Americans to be unencumbered by foreign intervention to take care of our own political differences. You got that, Kathy?

Psychoblues



Kathianne said:
Yeah, I hesitate to post from that blog, for fear his words might upset some! I like his take though.
 
Psychoblues said:
Don't worry about upsetting some. You are never concerned with upsetting those that disagree with you. I digress.

You "like his take" on this subject. Might I remind you, it's only his "take" or opinion. He lays no foundation or historical insight, just a new or at least until now unobserved and unsubstantiated claim.

Warmongers and War supporters never cease to amaze me. None of them know crap about the devastation and murder of WAR but they can excuse every devastation or murder (if it suits their agenda) in the name of heroics that they (themselves) cannot demonstrate.

Take this from an old VETERAN OF WAR, Kathianne, please. There will never be a legit excuse for this WAR ON IRAQ as there has never been any legit excuse for the War in Viet Nam as participated by the United States of America including me. Get it?

I've said before, I'll repeat it here and probably many times again. I did the 1991 War against Saddam Hussein and his intentions and his cohorts (he didn't really have many cohorts as evidenced by the very quick VICTORY WE achieved there). I didn't complain in 1991 and I still don't complain about the '91 thing or my own participation in Viet Nam. But living is also learning. Get that as well?

I was opposed from the get go on this WAR ON IRAQ and I continue my opposition. I was never opposed to the WAR IN VIET NAM as a youg man. I went and did my duty, came back and got an education about the reasons I ever went there in the first place.

I don't believe for a second that any American has any DUTY whatsoever to protect the conveniences of the oil industries or embellish the profits of the Halliburton's etc. of this world. Let the political differences in Iraq take care of themselves as I expect Americans to be unencumbered by foreign intervention to take care of our own political differences. You got that, Kathy?

Psychoblues

:gives:
 
Psychoblues said:
Don't worry about upsetting some. You are never concerned with upsetting those that disagree with you. I digress.

You "like his take" on this subject. Might I remind you, it's only his "take" or opinion. He lays no foundation or historical insight, just a new or at least until now unobserved and unsubstantiated claim.

Warmongers and War supporters never cease to amaze me. None of them know crap about the devastation and murder of WAR but they can excuse every devastation or murder (if it suits their agenda) in the name of heroics that they (themselves) cannot demonstrate.

Take this from an old VETERAN OF WAR, Kathianne, please. There will never be a legit excuse for this WAR ON IRAQ as there has never been any legit excuse for the War in Viet Nam as participated by the United States of America including me. Get it?

I've said before, I'll repeat it here and probably many times again. I did the 1991 War against Saddam Hussein and his intentions and his cohorts (he didn't really have many cohorts as evidenced by the very quick VICTORY WE achieved there). I didn't complain in 1991 and I still don't complain about the '91 thing or my own participation in Viet Nam. But living is also learning. Get that as well?

I was opposed from the get go on this WAR ON IRAQ and I continue my opposition. I was never opposed to the WAR IN VIET NAM as a youg man. I went and did my duty, came back and got an education about the reasons I ever went there in the first place.

I don't believe for a second that any American has any DUTY whatsoever to protect the conveniences of the oil industries or embellish the profits of the Halliburton's etc. of this world. Let the political differences in Iraq take care of themselves as I expect Americans to be unencumbered by foreign intervention to take care of our own political differences. You got that, Kathy?

Psychoblues


No one believes you Psycho, not that you were in any war, not that your posts are comprehensible. We get nothing from your screeds and no, we don't 'dig it.'
 
Psychoblues said:
...

Warmongers and War supporters never cease to amaze me. None of them know crap about the devastation and murder of WAR but they can excuse every devastation or murder (if it suits their agenda) in the name of heroics that they (themselves) cannot demonstrate.

Take this from an old VETERAN OF WAR, Kathianne, please. There will never be a legit excuse for this WAR ON IRAQ as there has never been any legit excuse for the War in Viet Nam as participated by the United States of America including me. Get it?

...

Here is some FLASH traffic for ya buddy...

I am a war supporter (and considered by some as a warmonger) and I know far better than most the horrendous effects of war. As for heroics, I have enough little pieces of ribbon and tin and would gladly compare records with ANYONE.

Take this from an old VETERAN of War, Psycho...there are plenty of legitimate reasons for this war in Iraq; there were plenty of legitimate reasons for the war in Viet Nam.

One more thing: just because you were a war hero in your own mind does not make your opinion any more valid than anyone elses. In fact, because you make unsubstantiated posts with the sole purpose of inflamming the folks on this board I am convinced that you were neither a war hero nor any other kind of hero. Veteran you may be but I have to wonder just how good a soldier you were...I bet I can guess with some accuracy based on your performance on this board, your own words as found in your posts and my vast experience in dealing with soldiers.

From now on, every time you use your veteran status to lend credibility to your specious, inflammatory statements I will be right there to remind you that your opinion holds no weight and is counterbalanced (if not overshadowed) by my own opinion. In other words, don't use that bullshit again to back up your posts. Every time you do, I will call you on it and demonstrate just what an ass you truly are. You got that, Psychoblues?
 
theim said:
...Now back to your regularly scheduled thread on the crusades.


http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2111

Oh, why the heck not? Here ya go:

Pope Moves to Redeem Crusades
By Ron Fraser
Monday, March 27, 2006

A Vatican-sponsored conference was convened last week to revisit the history of the Crusades with the object of painting them in a more acceptable light than history has granted them to this point.

Following the great religious wars of Europe that consummated in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, religion as a force in international relations went into exile. It remained so, sacrificed on the altar of secularist state-ism, for nigh on 3½ centuries.

If we were to search for a definitive point when religion began to emerge from exile and once again assert itself in geopolitics, we would do well to consider the year that John Paul ii ascended the papal throne.

This most political of postwar popes turned the world of international politics upside down. His ringing cries for Europe to throw off the shackles of atheistic communism in the East and liberal socialism in the West vibrated across that Continent, striking a chord with the masses in the Soviet Union whose freedom to practice religion had been suppressed for over 60 years.

Solidarity, the federation that formed in 1980 in Pope John’s homeland of Poland, may have been a trades union by name, but it was effectively a politico-religious entity at its heart and in its effect. It became the instrument employed by the Vatican, the cia and the allied leadership of the U.S. and Britain that broke the Soviet chokehold on eastern and southern Europe.

But if it was John Paul’s charismatic religious politicizing that began the resurgence of religion from its centuries-long absence in international relations, it was the horrors of 9/11 that propelled religion to center stage in global politics. Suddenly, a cataclysmic confrontation had occurred between Judeo-Christianism and its old enemy Islam, with devastating results. War was openly declared that day between extremist fundamentalist Islam and the Judeo-Christians. The response from the West was the declaration of a war on terror, a terror that had its roots in jihadist Muslim religion.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that this war will not go away until both sides have fully vented their historic hatred for each other’s religion.

From 2001 to his death in 2005, an aging, ailing John Paul ii continued to make homilies and deliver public messages designed to motivate Europeans to unite under the banner of Rome. At the same time, he publicly declared support for efforts to bring the three Abrahamaic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—together.

After John Paul’s death, in April 2005 the Bavarian Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope. This pope, Benedict xvi, commenced his public political orations in a vein that seemed to reach out to Islam. Very early in his pontificate, he even denied publicly that there was such a thing occurring as a “clash of civilizations.” However, two months after his election, an extremist, populist Islamic leader was elected to the presidency of the nation that seeks to lead the Islamic world, Iran.

Upon gaining office, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wasted no time in challenging the West with his anti-Jew, anti-U.S. and anti-British rhetoric, a rhetoric that was soon to embrace his disdain for all Europe as an enemy of Islam. Careful analysis of Pope Benedict’s published and orally delivered messages since then show a definite change in his public stance on the global disorder that extremist Islam has initiated. In fact, addressing the Vatican diplomatic corps on January 9, Benedict openly acknowledged that “the clash of civilizations” in today’s world “is made more acute by organized terrorism” (CWNews.com). Some few days earlier, addressing an overflow crowd in his first public audience this year, the pope went on the offensive. Using crusading language, he declared that the “moral imperative” of the Roman Catholic Church was to unite mankind in Christ. That’s universalist, Roman Catholic dogma. It says that the Vatican’s goal is to convert mankind to the religion of Rome!

But this pope is a quintessential diplomat.

As he addressed the 174 ambassadors accredited to the Holy See on January 9, he joined the church’s mission to that of all world leaders, stating that the Vatican is “united as in a common mission” with the world’s diplomats. (Considering that Rome’s mission is to catholicize the world, that was some statement!) In carefully worded diplomatic script designed as a hit at extremist Islam, the pope underpinned his reference to a “clash of civilizations” by pointing to the prime cause being terrorism, which he declared was rooted in “political ideology combined with aberrant religious ideas” (ibid., emphasis mine throughout). Only a fool would fail to catch this as a glaring reference to Islamic fundamentalism. This is a religious war of words, couched in the language of diplomacy.

Even more striking was the pope’s declaration to the diplomats gathered before his throne that “the nerve point of the world scene … is the Holy Land” (ibid.). The pope literally sees a great clash coming between Islam and Judeo-Christianity with its “nerve point” being Jerusalem.

Having these reactions of Pope Benedict in mind, it should then have come as no surprise to hear that last week, Pope Benedict moved to rehabilitate the Vatican’s Crusades of old against Islam. A Vatican-sponsored conference was convened to revisit the history of the Crusades with the object of painting them in a much more acceptable light than history has granted them to this point. As Italian newspaper La Stampa said, “The debate has been reopened.” Rather than cruel and crushing offensives against Islam, the Crusades are now being rewritten as a defense of Rome’s religion.

An Italian historian speaking at the conference declared that the crusaders were “martyrs,” and that the papal decrees which enacted the Crusades were “a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the holy places” (Times Online, March 20).

Add it all up. The pope declares that the world is caught in a clash of civilizations. He states that this clash results from terrorism borne of aberrant religious ideas. He cites Jerusalem as the nerve center of international relations. He sponsors a forum to redeem the Crusades as worthy actions of the Vatican of old. Can you see where this is going?

Read Gerald Flurry’s article titled “The Last Crusade” in the August 2001 edition of the Trumpet for a reality check on just where this pope is destined to lead the Western world.
 

Forum List

Back
Top