The Crusades: Why are we still fighting them?

[blu]

We're not.


Well, looks like this thread's done.

right

thats why we only ever seem to have problems with dictators in middle eastern countries, why when bush was president his pamphlets had jesus stuff on them, and a number of our bullets and weapons have bible verses engraved in them

Weapons tend to have bible verses on them because it is the troops that write them.

Only have trouble with Muslim nations? Did I miss something. Was Russia Muslim? Has China adopted a new religion? Did we go to war with Germany because the Islamic scare? All those damn Islamic Japanese must have been the source of those tensions as well. Hell, if the Vietnamese simply were not Nation of Islam we would have left them alone. Continued hostility with North Korea would end tomorrow if they would renounce Allah and reject Islam. Take off the blinders and maybe you would notice what is happening in the real world, not just what fits your preconceived notions. Ignorance......

we have toppled iran once already and have been trying again ever since
we have gone into iraq multiple times and have been bombing them now for ~20 years straight
we never left afghanistan since the last 80s

should i go on?

 

[FA_Q2]

what about the one MILLION muslim children that died in iraq due to our sanctions?

You would need to provide proof and specifically what sanctions you are referring to. Do you not support the fact that we, as a nation, can choose who to trade with and who not based on whatever our political goals are? If China refuses to send us toys would it be China's fault for children not having anything to play with or ours for not producing the products ourselves? That logic is somewhat twisted, sanctions are direct responses to the actions of nations. Should we just sell the atomic weapons to Iran since sanctions are so morally wrong?

you can read some of the ref'd stuff here:

Iraq sanctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or just google about it. it was a huge deal when the numbers finally broke past the christian run federal government we have and sane people started demanding action

That fails to address the grater questions that were asked of you. Not to mention that those numbers are a direct result of corruption within their own government as well. Oil for food ring a bell. The fact is, sanctions are a response to their own government action. Take that away and all that is left is war. Would you prefer that rout? If you want to argue against that type of action the BRING ANOTHER SOLUTION! As I aid, same sanctions are used against Iran, should we remove them and cut to the chase.... How much should we charge for each nuclear warhead?

 

[FA_Q2]

right

thats why we only ever seem to have problems with dictators in middle eastern countries, why when bush was president his pamphlets had jesus stuff on them, and a number of our bullets and weapons have bible verses engraved in them

Weapons tend to have bible verses on them because it is the troops that write them.

Only have trouble with Muslim nations? Did I miss something. Was Russia Muslim? Has China adopted a new religion? Did we go to war with Germany because the Islamic scare? All those damn Islamic Japanese must have been the source of those tensions as well. Hell, if the Vietnamese simply were not Nation of Islam we would have left them alone. Continued hostility with North Korea would end tomorrow if they would renounce Allah and reject Islam. Take off the blinders and maybe you would notice what is happening in the real world, not just what fits your preconceived notions. Ignorance......

we have toppled iran once already and have been trying again ever since
we have gone into iraq multiple times and have been bombing them now for ~20 years straight
we never left afghanistan since the last 80s

should i go on?

Fail, there were 6 nations I named off the TOP OF MY HEAD. ONLY is obviously not true.

 

[frazzledgear]

Both jihad and the crusades provide a religious justification for war and intolerance.

Learn real history instead of the politically correct version. The politically correct version has much less to do with what really happened as with what we are supposed to pretend happened and then that phony re-write is always judged by today's mores of course -as if this generation has the final word on that one, right? But knowing what happened and why would actually require picking up a book that wasn't written for the purpose of satisfying the politically correct in control of our public education. There is a reason we should keep government entirely out of our education system -primarily because actually educating our children becomes a tertiary goal if government becomes involved. See if you can figure out what the primary and secondary goals become when government becomes involved for yourself but if your education stopped at 12 grade at your local high school, I'm not optimistic that you can.

 

[daveman]

The Crusades: Why are we still fighting them?

We're not.


Well, looks like this thread's done.

right

thats why we only ever seem to have problems with dictators in middle eastern countries, why when bush was president his pamphlets had jesus stuff on them, and a number of our bullets and weapons have bible verses engraved in them

I heard about the weapons parts with Biblical references (it was the vendor who provided the parts; it wasn't government policy), but haven't heard of the others. Links?

 

[daveman]

what about the one MILLION muslim children that died in iraq due to our sanctions?

You would need to provide proof and specifically what sanctions you are referring to. Do you not support the fact that we, as a nation, can choose who to trade with and who not based on whatever our political goals are? If China refuses to send us toys would it be China's fault for children not having anything to play with or ours for not producing the products ourselves? That logic is somewhat twisted, sanctions are direct responses to the actions of nations. Should we just sell the atomic weapons to Iran since sanctions are so morally wrong?

you can read some of the ref'd stuff here:

Iraq sanctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or just google about it. it was a huge deal when the numbers finally broke past the christian run federal government we have and sane people started demanding action

So, Saddam diverted and stole the aid meant for his people...and it's AMERICA'S fault.

Saddam thanks you for your support, but regrets to inform you he's still dead.

 

[daveman]

one example:

Company offers to stop putting biblical references on military scopes - CNN.com

Was the verse in the MILSPEC for the part, or was the engraving the company's idea?

 

[L.K.Eder]

religion haters need scapegoats--much like a german dude we all have heard of.

That German dude. Are you referring to Hitler, the Christian?

Hitler ? LMAO Show me where he encouraged his troops to kill for God .

 

[editec]

Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.

The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this "blood libel" regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.

Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on "Islam". But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

· Karen Armstrong is the author of Islam: A Short History


Karen Armstrong: We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam | Comment is free | The Guardian

Wait a minute.

Not that I have any problem with your characterization of the Crusades, but you do realize, don't you, that the Mid East was taken by crusaders of Islam, TOO, right?

Islam mostly was advanced by the sword.

It most certainly was a chonically violent expansionfrom day one, actually.

Islam's "crusades" started in the Saudi pensula and expanded all over Asia, North Africa and parts of Europe

Anybody who suggests otherwise is full of historical revisionist beans.

Islamic historians don't deny this

Why would they?

They're proud of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.

The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this "blood libel" regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.

Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on "Islam". But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

· Karen Armstrong is the author of Islam: A Short History


Karen Armstrong: We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam | Comment is free | The Guardian

Wait a minute.

Not that I have any problem with your characterization of the Crusades, but you do realize, don't you, that the Mid East was taken by crusaders of Islam, TOO, right?

Islam mostly was advanced by the sword.

It most certainly was a chonically violent expansionfrom day one, actually.

Islam's "crusades" started in the Saudi pensula and expanded all over Asia, North Africa and parts of Europe

Anybody who suggests otherwise is full of historical revisionist beans.

Islamic historians don't deny this

Why would they?

They're proud of it.

Yes, when Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, most Christians and Jews fled to the west and Islam would become the predominant religion in Eastern Europe and the near East. For awhile the old enlightenment was merged with Islam and made the Ottoman Empire one of the most far reaching, long lasting, and influential entities in human history. But fundamentalism in Islam gradually eroded creativity, thought, and reason, even as the Renaissance and Reformation encouraged that in the west. It was such stagnation of thought and creativity that would eventually bring down and dissolve the Empire.

Islamic historians like to write about the glory days. Not so much the outcome, however.

 

[daveman]

No, no, no. Islam's crusades were completely fine. It's Christianity's crusades that were evil.

Or so I hear.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Crusades were a bloodbath on both sides.

 

[daveman]

The Crusades were a bloodbath on both sides.

But I don't see the oh-so-tolerant lefties in this thread condemning anything but the Christians.

 

[Richard-H]

For the most part western civilization has not been particularly anti-Islamic for the past several hundred years. Westerners have been more concentrated on conquering each other and if anything, more towards conquering the Americas, African, India and the far east.

Even today Westerners aren't anti-Islamic. There really isn't any hard feeling towards Black Muslims for example.

But, Westerners have a very big issue with TERRORISM. Oddly enough we consider it to be mass MURDER. Unfortunately, ARABS don't see it that way. They feel that killing in any way - even if it has no relationship to the conflict which they are fighting for - is O.K.

It seems to be a Arab cultural thing. Just their way of letting off steam. Kill a whole bunch of randomly selected people, whenever anything annoys you.

And that's really the truth of it. The problems that we have today is with the Arab culture, not Islam itself.

If you'd notice, everywhere that Arab culture interacts with ANY OTHER CULTURE, there is conflict. Usually in the form of terrorism (i.e. random mass murder).

They are in conflict with America, Great Britian, France, Spain, Greece, Russia, India, Malaysia, Isreal, Africa, China, the Philippines and probably a few that I can't think of at the moment.

The amount of terrorism by Arabs against Arabs is also quite high.

It would probably be shorter to list the cultures that have not been attacked by Arab terrorism than the ones that have:

Let's see: North Korea, Japan, South America, Iceland....maybe a few Carribean Islands...

So, where do you think the problem lies?

 

[Sky Dancer]

For the most part western civilization has not been particularly anti-Islamic for the past several hundred years. Westerners have been more concentrated on conquering each other and if anything, more towards conquering the Americas, African, India and the far east.

Even today Westerners aren't anti-Islamic. There really isn't any hard feeling towards Black Muslims for example.

But, Westerners have a very big issue with TERRORISM. Oddly enough we consider it to be mass MURDER. Unfortunately, ARABS don't see it that way. They feel that killing in any way - even if it has no relationship to the conflict which they are fighting for - is O.K.

It seems to be a Arab cultural thing. Just their way of letting off steam. Kill a whole bunch of randomly selected people, whenever anything annoys you.

And that's really the truth of it. The problems that we have today is with the Arab culture, not Islam itself.

If you'd notice, everywhere that Arab culture interacts with ANY OTHER CULTURE, there is conflict. Usually in the form of terrorism (i.e. random mass murder).

They are in conflict with America, Great Britian, France, Spain, Greece, Russia, India, Malaysia, Isreal, Africa, China, the Philippines and probably a few that I can't think of at the moment.

The amount of terrorism by Arabs against Arabs is also quite high.

It would probably be shorter to list the cultures that have not been attacked by Arab terrorism than the ones that have:

Let's see: North Korea, Japan, South America, Iceland....maybe a few Carribean Islands...

So, where do you think the problem lies?

Interesting POV. So it's Arab culture not Islam tht's the source of terrorism? Westerners don't tend to make much of a distincition between Arabs and Muslims.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the most part western civilization has not been particularly anti-Islamic for the past several hundred years. Westerners have been more concentrated on conquering each other and if anything, more towards conquering the Americas, African, India and the far east.

Even today Westerners aren't anti-Islamic. There really isn't any hard feeling towards Black Muslims for example.

But, Westerners have a very big issue with TERRORISM. Oddly enough we consider it to be mass MURDER. Unfortunately, ARABS don't see it that way. They feel that killing in any way - even if it has no relationship to the conflict which they are fighting for - is O.K.

It seems to be a Arab cultural thing. Just their way of letting off steam. Kill a whole bunch of randomly selected people, whenever anything annoys you.

And that's really the truth of it. The problems that we have today is with the Arab culture, not Islam itself.

If you'd notice, everywhere that Arab culture interacts with ANY OTHER CULTURE, there is conflict. Usually in the form of terrorism (i.e. random mass murder).

They are in conflict with America, Great Britian, France, Spain, Greece, Russia, India, Malaysia, Isreal, Africa, China, the Philippines and probably a few that I can't think of at the moment.

The amount of terrorism by Arabs against Arabs is also quite high.

It would probably be shorter to list the cultures that have not been attacked by Arab terrorism than the ones that have:

Let's see: North Korea, Japan, South America, Iceland....maybe a few Carribean Islands...

So, where do you think the problem lies?

Interesting POV. So it's Arab culture not Islam tht's the source of terrorism? Westerners don't tend to make much of a distincition between Arabs and Muslims.

I read one time--I wish I could find the source and if I do I will post it--an analysis of the advancement of an Islamic culture on a non-Islamic culture. And according to that author--some expert on the subject--it goes something like this:

--A small minority of Islamic people are invariably quiet, unobtrusive, peaceful, and good neighbors. They may utilize Islamic dress, etc. but more often than not simply do as the Roman do so to speak.

--As a larger minority develops, however, Islamic people may become more reclusive and judgmental of their neighbors. There will be more open and obvious manifestations of their religion and culture including manner of dress, head scarves, etc.

--When a sufficiently large minority has developed, Islamic people begin making requests and demands for accommodation for their culture and religion. They will require time for Islamic prayers--demand that their manner of dress be accommodated--require that there be accommodations for their dietary needs and, as in the case in France and Britain and a few other places, will begin petitioning for Sharia Law to be imposed at least for their own people.

--Finally when Islam has achieved a majority, they will begin removing rights and privileges from non Islamic peoples.

--And when Islam has achieved a sufficient majority, Islamic Law is imposed and all others will be expected to live by it and very limited, if any, accommodation will be given to any non-Muslims in their midst.

I at first questioned this analysis. But when I looked up the histories and development of Islamic nations around the world, I could not find much with which to dispute it. I dont' think the problem is Arabs. I think the problem is Islam.

 

[AllieBaba]

For the most part western civilization has not been particularly anti-Islamic for the past several hundred years. Westerners have been more concentrated on conquering each other and if anything, more towards conquering the Americas, African, India and the far east.

Even today Westerners aren't anti-Islamic. There really isn't any hard feeling towards Black Muslims for example.

But, Westerners have a very big issue with TERRORISM. Oddly enough we consider it to be mass MURDER. Unfortunately, ARABS don't see it that way. They feel that killing in any way - even if it has no relationship to the conflict which they are fighting for - is O.K.

It seems to be a Arab cultural thing. Just their way of letting off steam. Kill a whole bunch of randomly selected people, whenever anything annoys you.

And that's really the truth of it. The problems that we have today is with the Arab culture, not Islam itself.

If you'd notice, everywhere that Arab culture interacts with ANY OTHER CULTURE, there is conflict. Usually in the form of terrorism (i.e. random mass murder).

They are in conflict with America, Great Britian, France, Spain, Greece, Russia, India, Malaysia, Isreal, Africa, China, the Philippines and probably a few that I can't think of at the moment.

The amount of terrorism by Arabs against Arabs is also quite high.

It would probably be shorter to list the cultures that have not been attacked by Arab terrorism than the ones that have:

Let's see: North Korea, Japan, South America, Iceland....maybe a few Carribean Islands...

So, where do you think the problem lies?

Interesting POV. So it's Arab culture not Islam tht's the source of terrorism? Westerners don't tend to make much of a distincition between Arabs and Muslims.

Given the fact that Arab countries are THEOCRACIES it wouldn't make sense if we did.

 

[AllieBaba]

For the most part western civilization has not been particularly anti-Islamic for the past several hundred years. Westerners have been more concentrated on conquering each other and if anything, more towards conquering the Americas, African, India and the far east.

Even today Westerners aren't anti-Islamic. There really isn't any hard feeling towards Black Muslims for example.

But, Westerners have a very big issue with TERRORISM. Oddly enough we consider it to be mass MURDER. Unfortunately, ARABS don't see it that way. They feel that killing in any way - even if it has no relationship to the conflict which they are fighting for - is O.K.

It seems to be a Arab cultural thing. Just their way of letting off steam. Kill a whole bunch of randomly selected people, whenever anything annoys you.

And that's really the truth of it. The problems that we have today is with the Arab culture, not Islam itself.

If you'd notice, everywhere that Arab culture interacts with ANY OTHER CULTURE, there is conflict. Usually in the form of terrorism (i.e. random mass murder).

They are in conflict with America, Great Britian, France, Spain, Greece, Russia, India, Malaysia, Isreal, Africa, China, the Philippines and probably a few that I can't think of at the moment.

The amount of terrorism by Arabs against Arabs is also quite high.

It would probably be shorter to list the cultures that have not been attacked by Arab terrorism than the ones that have:

Let's see: North Korea, Japan, South America, Iceland....maybe a few Carribean Islands...

So, where do you think the problem lies?

Interesting POV. So it's Arab culture not Islam tht's the source of terrorism? Westerners don't tend to make much of a distincition between Arabs and Muslims.

I read one time--I wish I could find the source and if I do I will post it--an analysis of the advancement of an Islamic culture on a non-Islamic culture. And according to that author--some expert on the subject--it goes something like this:

--A small minority of Islamic people are invariably quiet, unobtrusive, peaceful, and good neighbors. They may utilize Islamic dress, etc. but more often than not simply do as the Roman do so to speak.

--As a larger minority develops, however, Islamic people may become more reclusive and judgmental of their neighbors. There will be more open and obvious manifestations of their religion and culture including manner of dress, head scarves, etc.

--When a sufficiently large minority has developed, Islamic people begin making requests and demands for accommodation for their culture and religion. They will require time for Islamic prayers--demand that their manner of dress be accommodated--require that there be accommodations for their dietary needs and, as in the case in France and Britain and a few other places, will begin petitioning for Sharia Law to be imposed at least for their own people.

--Finally when Islam has achieved a majority, they will begin removing rights and privileges from non Islamic peoples.

--And when Islam has achieved a sufficient majority, Islamic Law is imposed and all others will be expected to live by it and very limited, if any, accommodation will be given to any non-Muslims in their midst.

I at first questioned this analysis. But when I looked up the histories and development of Islamic nations around the world, I could not find much with which to dispute it. I dont' think the problem is Arabs. I think the problem is Islam.

That's the template of the Koran.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Interesting POV. So it's Arab culture not Islam tht's the source of terrorism? Westerners don't tend to make much of a distincition between Arabs and Muslims.

I read one time--I wish I could find the source and if I do I will post it--an analysis of the advancement of an Islamic culture on a non-Islamic culture. And according to that author--some expert on the subject--it goes something like this:

--A small minority of Islamic people are invariably quiet, unobtrusive, peaceful, and good neighbors. They may utilize Islamic dress, etc. but more often than not simply do as the Roman do so to speak.

--As a larger minority develops, however, Islamic people may become more reclusive and judgmental of their neighbors. There will be more open and obvious manifestations of their religion and culture including manner of dress, head scarves, etc.

--When a sufficiently large minority has developed, Islamic people begin making requests and demands for accommodation for their culture and religion. They will require time for Islamic prayers--demand that their manner of dress be accommodated--require that there be accommodations for their dietary needs and, as in the case in France and Britain and a few other places, will begin petitioning for Sharia Law to be imposed at least for their own people.

--Finally when Islam has achieved a majority, they will begin removing rights and privileges from non Islamic peoples.

--And when Islam has achieved a sufficient majority, Islamic Law is imposed and all others will be expected to live by it and very limited, if any, accommodation will be given to any non-Muslims in their midst.

I at first questioned this analysis. But when I looked up the histories and development of Islamic nations around the world, I could not find much with which to dispute it. I dont' think the problem is Arabs. I think the problem is Islam.

That's the template of the Koran.

Which Sky and her retarded allies refuse to grasp.

 

[Richard-H]

I guess my distinction between Islam and Arab comes from the fact that I'm a white Irish Catholic raised with conservative social values. I lived for a number of years in a predominantly Black Muslim area. I did not feel that they were pushing their religion or culture on me in any way. They were open and accepting of the fact that I am an atheist.

I didn't feel threatened in any way by Black Muslims. They were openly and vocally anti-white, but not in a violent or threatening way. Their opinions were their opinions, that was all there was to it. They were very much against violence.

There was high crime in the area, but I have no doubt that Black Muslims were not the causing the crime.

I really think that the current world conflicts are really more due to the Arab culture, which is all but universally Islam, rather than Islam itself.