The Islam Thread

[manu1959]

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_crusades01.htm

posted this before..........sure looks like the muslims were the bad guys here

 

[glockmail]

The fourth Crusade went into Constantinople. In mainstream history, when a person refers to the crusades, they are talking about freeing the Holy Land from Muslims. The Moors got as far as Spain. Bout it re Europe (except Albania and parts of Bosnia). Nothing lazy about not taking a op-ed piece, from a far right Christian site with an agenda, as gospel. I'll take my history straight thanks...

The "main stream" does not deny what I have posted. Do you?

 

[glockmail]

I will say she was mistaken because in the case of Dale Earnhart, she admitted she was wrong, and future editions of her book were corrected. The woman has written millions of words. She uses more facts than any other pundit I've ever read, and she is rarely wrong. But when she is, she admits it.

I'll give some more examples of mistakes she's made with facts and the reaction to them:

In one of her books she mistook someones grandfather for their father. As soon as this mistake was noticed, the knives came out and Ann was villified for it. Al Franken wrote, in one of his books, about this error and called it a lie by saying that the man was not the subjects father without ever once mentioning the fact that he was the subjects grandfather. Ann's confusing a mans grandfather with his father was a mistake. Calling her a liar without ever mentioning that the fact that she simply confused the relationship was a deliberate, and nasty, attempt to smear her. She admitted that mistake and corrected it.

Speaking of Franken, Ann once said that they had met socially and were "friendly". Well, Franken took great issue with that, and again called her a liar. Ann corrected that, too. She admitted that she did not mean to imply they were friends, just that they had met socially and were cordial to each other in social settings. I believe she said she should have used the term "civil" instead of friendly. But, seriously, how fucking petty can you get?

Ann was accused of lying by calling the end notes in her books "foot notes". Again, she admitted she was guilty of this terrible lie. She did refer to end notes as foot notes. And so do a hell of a lot of other people.

Considering the vast amount that Coulter has written, and the copious facts she uses to back up her opinions, she has made very few mistakes, has admitted and corrected every one, and none of them could possibly be considered a lie. Except by those who hate her opinions. And when calling her a liar doesn't work, they go after her looks.

Funny, I'm getting a similar reaction from libs in this very thread.:clap1:

jill: post 114 (although she gets the prize for most tact among these three)
matts: posts 78, 101
Grump: post 61

Looks like you nailed it NT. Now if we could just get you to join the 700 Club....

 

[Dr Grump]

The "main stream" does not deny what I have posted. Do you?

Go see any history professor worth their salt. Ask them about the crusades with no caveats. Just simply say "what were the crusades about". Check out their answer. I'll bet you anything you care to name they'll talk about the Holy Land and not some mishmash revisionist history put out by a right-wing Christian site trying to insite hate towards Islam. Go on, I dare ya. You seem pretty sure in your "opinion"...go for it...

 

[glockmail]

Go see any history professor worth their salt. Ask them about the crusades with no caveats. Just simply say "what were the crusades about". Check out their answer. I'll bet you anything you care to name they'll talk about the Holy Land and not some mishmash revisionist history put out by a right-wing Christian site trying to insite hate towards Islam. Go on, I dare ya. You seem pretty sure in your "opinion"...go for it...

Don't you mean "double dare"?:sleepy1:

I'm still waiting for you or someone to rise to my earlier challenge (post 115) and show me that what I referenced earlier is incorrect. A comparison of the opinions of one history expert over another are meaningless.

 

[Dr Grump]

Don't you mean "double dare"?:sleepy1:

I'm still waiting for you or someone to rise to my earlier challenge (post 115) and show me that what I referenced earlier is incorrect. A comparison of the opinions of one history expert over another are meaningless.

Your main contention is the crusades were established to kick Muslims out of Europe. This is untrue. They were to kick Muslims out of the Holy Lands. That is a fact. The fourth crusade was to kick Muslims out of Constantinople, not considered part of Europe at the time (at best it was considered a “gateway” to Europe, but hardly an integral part of the continent). The Spanish finally kicked the last of the Muslim Moors out of Spain about the same time Columbus discovered Hispaniola – a good 300 years after the crusades. Now, your contention that the crusades were aimed at kicking out Muslims out of Europe is just plain wrong. Citing a dodgy source doesn’t make it so. Anybody could do that. For example – IMO 9-11 was carried out by extremist Muslims. There is a large number of facts to back this up. However, there is the odd person who thinks Bush was responsible. There are websites stating this to be so. Because these sites are up and running does that mean Bush did it? Get back to me when you have more solid evidence to back up your POV. Hell, just find me a link that says the first crusades, the ones that history refers to as “the crusades” were in fact aimed at kicking/keeping Muslims out of Europe. Shouldn’t be too hard to find a huge number of credible sites – after all the Crusades were a huge part of history. BTW, I’m more than willing to be proven wrong on this.

 

[jillian]

Don't you mean "double dare"?:sleepy1:

I'm still waiting for you or someone to rise to my earlier challenge (post 115) and show me that what I referenced earlier is incorrect. A comparison of the opinions of one history expert over another are meaningless.

Once again, you WERE shown that the crusades was about Jerusalem... Jerusalem which was never, obviously, part of Europe or in the possession of Christians. Given that the starting point of the Crusades had nothing to do with European interests, I'm not quite certainl how you steadfastly believe that somehow Jerusalem was a Christian entitlement or that the Crusades were anything like peaceful evangelism.

But I'll try again... Crusades 101...

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns conducted in the name of Christendom[1] and usually sanctioned by the Pope.[2] They were of a religious character, combining pilgrimage with militarism. When originally conceptualized, the aim was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims while supporting the Byzantine Empire against the "ghazwat" of the Seljuq [3] expansion into Anatolia. The fourth crusade however was diverted and resulted in the conquest of Constantinople. Later crusades were launched against various targets for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, and the Northern Crusades.

Beyond the medieval military events, the word "crusade" has evolved to have multiple meanings and connotations. For additional meanings, see usage of the term "crusade" below and/or the dictionary definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

You can't get an honest assessment of something which can only be characterized as Christian Aggression from a biased site. You should rely on religious groups to talk about your bible... you can rely on religious groups, if you choose, to help form your worldview and your morality. You can't learn either science or history from religion...although there is history mixed in with the religious stuff in the bible.

 

[glockmail]

Your main contention is the crusades were established to kick Muslims out of Europe. This is untrue. They were to kick Muslims out of the Holy Lands. That is a fact. ....

No, it is your opinion, and my opinion is different, based on my research and the reasonable assumption that medieval people would not support a war unless it was started in their own back yard, then once started, would continue it until its conclusion, and if that means wiping Islam off the face of the earth then so be it. If Islam had stayed in Arab lands then the Crusades would probably never have happened.

 

[glockmail]

Once again, you WERE shown that the crusades was about Jerusalem... Jerusalem which was never, obviously, part of Europe or in the possession of Christians. ....

Before you get all hysterical perhaps you could show me where I claimed this.

 

[cranston36]

:thumbdown:

 

[Dr Grump]

No, it is your opinion, and my opinion is different, based on my research and the reasonable assumption that medieval people would not support a war unless it was started in their own back yard, then once started, would continue it until its conclusion, and if that means wiping Islam off the face of the earth then so be it. If Islam had stayed in Arab lands then the Crusades would probably never have happened.

No, my assertion is not an opinion, it is a fact. As for your "reasonable assumption" I can only conclude history is not your strong point. Anyway, I'm done and dusted. You can lead a horse to water and all....

 

[jillian]

No, my assertion is not an opinion, it is a fact. As for your "reasonable assumption" I can only conclude history is not your strong point. Anyway, I'm done and dusted. You can lead a horse to water and all....

Is it my imagination or is she implying that history is now a matter of opinion?? :huh: :fifty:

 

[Dr Grump]

Is it my imagination or is she implying that history is now a matter of opinion?? :huh: :fifty:

I think so. Or that if 99 people say one thing, and one person says another, then the one person's version has as much weight. You ever hear of David Irving?

 

[manu1959]

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_crusades01.htm

posted this before..........sure looks like the muslims were the bad guys here

so the first crusade was in 1095 yet......

in 0715

By this year just about all of Spain is in Muslim hands. The Muslim conquest of Spain only took around three years but the Christian reconquest would require around 460 years (it might have gone faster had the various Christian kingdoms not been at each other' throats much of the time). Musa's son, Abd el-Aziz, is left in charge and makes his capital the city of Seville, where he married Egilona, widow of king Rodrigo. Caliph Suleiman, a paranoid ruler, would have el-Aziz assassinated and sends Musa into exile in his native Yemen village to live out his days as a beggar.

 

[manu1959]

I think so. Or that if 99 people say one thing, and one person says another, then the one person's version has as much weight. You ever hear of David Irving?

how about this ...if i can get 99 people to say you are rude...and jill says you are not....are you in fact rude?

anyway did Muslims invade Christian Europe first or did Christian Europe invade Jerusalem first?

 

[nt250]

how about this ...if i can get 99 people to say you are rude...and jill says you are not....are you in fact rude?

anyway did Muslims invade Christian Europe first or did Christian Europe invade Jerusalem first?

Don't ask a liberal something like that. They probably can't look it up at Wikipedia.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Don't ask a liberal something like that. They probably can't look it up at Wikipedia.

 

[Dr Grump]

how about this ...if i can get 99 people to say you are rude...and jill says you are not....are you in fact rude?

anyway did Muslims invade Christian Europe first or did Christian Europe invade Jerusalem first?

The Moors invasion of Spain is a different subject to the Crusades. If you want to start that subject, take it up with Glock. I ain't interested...

how about this ...if i can get 99 people to say you are a buffoon...and NT250 says you are not....are you in fact a buffoon?

 

[Dr Grump]

Don't ask a liberal something like that. They probably can't look it up at Wikipedia.

:shocked:

 

[manu1959]

The Moors invasion of Spain is a different subject to the Crusades. If you want to start that subject, take it up with Glock. I ain't interested...

how about this ...if i can get 99 people to say you are a buffoon...and NT250 says you are not....are you in fact a buffoon?

if not for the moor invasion of Europe and Jerusalem the crusades would not have been necessary.

no matter.... my wife says i am a buffoon so it does not matter what the rest of you buffoons say....

if a wood chuck could cuck wood...was that wood chuck born to chuck wood or did he choose to chuck wood?