crusades

  • Thread starter Thread starter memnoch_lover
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

memnoch_lover

Guest
after islam conquered half of the christian roman empire land

do you think the crusades was an aggressive venture?

or was the crusade a counter attack on islam hence defensive?
 
40.png
memnoch_lover:
after islam conquered half of the christian roman empire land

do you think the crusades was an aggressive venture?

or was the crusade a counter attack on islam hence defensive?
The Crusades were UGLY (especially b/c they were fought between religious ideologies). That much we can say.

Personally, I’ve always seen it as a defensive/revenge venture. Though there was a “Holy Land” rhetoric, it was true that the West did not want Islam eating up the Byzantine world (no matter how much the crusaders hated the Byzantine world and later showed it). The West also wanted to reclaim Jerusalem, as much as all Muslims would die to reclaim a conquered Mecca. Let’s face it… it was a revenge/comback war for the Christian world. A failed, ugly, and embarassing one.
 
40.png
adventistnomore:
The Crusades were UGLY (especially b/c they were fought between religious ideologies). That much we can say.

Personally, I’ve always seen it as a defensive/revenge venture. Though there was a “Holy Land” rhetoric, it was true that the West did not want Islam eating up the Byzantine world (no matter how much the crusaders hated the Byzantine world and later showed it). The West also wanted to reclaim Jerusalem, as much as all Muslims would die to reclaim a conquered Mecca. Let’s face it… it was a revenge/comback war for the Christian world. A failed, ugly, and embarassing one.
I could not disagree more. Christians had been making pilgrimages to the Holy Land for centuries prior to the invention of islam. The newly invented religion of islam gave rise to a fanatical imperialism. The islamic fanatics invaded and captured the Christian HolyLand, and then began to harrass and endanger the lives of Christian pilgrims.

The islamo facists were not content with just Jerusalem and its immediate environs but had imperialistic designs on northern Africa and Europe. The Koran or the Sword was the battle cry as a horde of islamic extremists swept over northern Africa and southern Spain in a fit of rape and pillage. The islamo facists bragged that they would enter Europe and capture the Pope, yet were stopped by CharlesMartel (Chuck the Hammer).

The six righteous and justifiable Holy Crusades were to stop the racist and imperialistic Mohammedians from murdering and enslaving Christian Pilgrims and to stop the imperialistic designs of the newly invented religion. By preventing the islamo facists from entering Europe, the Holy Crusades were successful in preventing the infidels from going any further than they did. The Holy Crusades only failed in booting the infidels out of the Holy Land.
 
Purely defensive in nature. If it wasn’t for the Crusades we’d all be Muslim perhaps.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
I could not disagree more. Christians had been making pilgrimages to the Holy Land for centuries prior to the invention of islam. The newly invented religion of islam gave rise to a fanatical imperialism. The islamic fanatics invaded and captured the Christian HolyLand, and then began to harrass and endanger the lives of Christian pilgrims…
Agreed. The oppresson of Christian populations in the middle East (accompanied by iconoclasm, social/financial restrictions, etc.), and especially pilgrims, is a major cause of the crusades. Point conceded.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
I could not disagree more. Christians had been making pilgrimages to the Holy Land for centuries prior to the invention of islam. The newly invented religion of islam gave rise to a fanatical imperialism. The islamic fanatics invaded and captured the Christian HolyLand, and then began to harrass and endanger the lives of Christian pilgrims.

The islamo facists were not content with just Jerusalem and its immediate environs but had imperialistic designs on northern Africa and Europe. The Koran or the Sword was the battle cry as a horde of islamic extremists swept over northern Africa and southern Spain in a fit of rape and pillage. The islamo facists bragged that they would enter Europe and capture the Pope, yet were stopped by CharlesMartel (Chuck the Hammer).

The six righteous and justifiable Holy Crusades were to stop the racist and imperialistic Mohammedians from murdering and enslaving Christian Pilgrims and to stop the imperialistic designs of the newly invented religion. By preventing the islamo facists from entering Europe, the Holy Crusades were successful in preventing the infidels from going any further than they did. The Holy Crusades only failed in booting the infidels out of the Holy Land.
I agree! The Crusades were necessary, justified, and NO APOLOGY NEEDED.

Vickie
 
Amen Amen
There were some bad apple who where crusaders. For the most part however they built schools and hospitals and cared for everyone. They were still christians. The problem that most Westerners have is that we have had Judeo-Christian believes since the end of the persecutions of Christians in the 4th century. Our civilazation has been built by the Catholic Church. The Church is responsible for the Universities, the arts, and the laws of our civilazation. So even our secularist have been effected by Christianity.
We however have lost our desire to protect what we have been given. If we don’t fight for what we believe in we will lose our culture.
 
Well, i think the bad thing about the crusades is that they killed countless civilians in Jerusalem . It is said that Blood was all over the streets.
 
I ran across this article when that waste of celluloid “Kingdom of Heaven” was in the theaters. It gives a pretty good argument why we HAD to start the crusades.
 
40.png
meedo:
Well, i think the bad thing about the crusades is that they killed countless civilians in Jerusalem . It is said that Blood was all over the streets.
Muslems killed countless Christians before the battle in Jerusalem and sent countless good looking boys and girls into slavery. Do you think that was bad too?
 
40.png
meedo:
Well, i think the bad thing about the crusades is that they killed countless civilians in Jerusalem . It is said that Blood was all over the streets.
I believe it was the 4th Crusade that ransacked Constantinople as a punitive measure which critics of Catholicism use to give all six Holy Crusades a bad name. Just as critics of Catholicism use the Spanish Inquisition to give all the other necessary Inquisitions a bad name.

The six Holy Crusades were necessary to protect Christian pilgrims and to repress islamic imperialism; and the several Inquisitions were necessary to purify the faith and to reduce the amount of protestant heresy from infecting all of Western Europe.

No apologies needed for either one.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
I believe it was the 4th Crusade that ransacked Constantinople as a punitive measure which critics of Catholicism use to give all six Holy Crusades a bad name. Just as critics of Catholicism use the Spanish Inquisition to give all the other necessary Inquisitions a bad name.

The six Holy Crusades were necessary to protect Christian pilgrims and to repress islamic imperialism; and the several Inquisitions were necessary to purify the faith and to reduce the amount of protestant heresy from infecting all of Western Europe.

No apologies needed for either one.
NO apologies? Surely you jest. No apology for the intent, agreed. Apologies galore are needed for the actions of a host of renegade individuals. The church is called to a higher standard than the world. She is called to perfection (though will never fully acheive it here on earth). Muslim atrocities do not excuse the sins committed by crusaders.

We must, actually understand that war of this up-close personal sort indeed does involve savagery beyond our comprehension. Forgiveness was available to repentant crusaders who sinned. Excuses are not acceptable substitutes.

I agree that if not for the crusades, Islam might well have overrun Europe.
 
40.png
adventistnomore:
Agreed. The oppresson of Christian populations in the middle East (accompanied by iconoclasm, social/financial restrictions, etc.), and especially pilgrims, is a major cause of the crusades. Point conceded.
You know, I like that. I wish there was more of it, dialogue. When someone is willing to compromise on a point, I’m more inclined to accept their opinion on another point of the discussion.

Jim
 
The entire world was barbaric by today’s standards back in the time of the crusades and inquisition wasn’t it? How does one judge? By today’s Just War Doctrine or by attempting to have a medival mindset? I always have difficulty with those types of things (the OP).

Seems like everyone should just move on. I’m a shallow person in many respects; I only think about the crusades when the topic of Islam comes up. I’ve always figured the East was as bloodthirsty as the West. So it’s a push. Am I missing something? The questions of the OP are legitimate, but how important is a depper understanding of the crusades help me interact with people from the rest of the world?
Also, didn’t JPII apologize for atrocities of the crusades?
BTW, thanks for the links Johnny.

Jim
 
40.png
manualman:
NO apologies? Surely you jest. No apology for the intent, agreed. Apologies galore are needed for the actions of a host of renegade individuals. The church is called to a higher standard than the world. She is called to perfection (though will never fully acheive it here on earth). Muslim atrocities do not excuse the sins committed by crusaders.

We must, actually understand that war of this up-close personal sort indeed does involve savagery beyond our comprehension. Forgiveness was available to repentant crusaders who sinned. Excuses are not acceptable substitutes.

I agree that if not for the crusades, Islam might well have overrun Europe.
I do not jest. I am sick and tired of critics trying to guilt me out by pointing out how barbaric the Christians acted in the Crusades. Well, when you wage war, bad things happen. You cannot rule out the rape and pillage of the islamo facists and their rampant imperialism and only hold the Christan Crusaders accountable for any perceived misdeeds (exactly what were those misdeeds?).
All armies lived off the land they occupied in the middle ages and earlier. So exactly what was it that the Christian Crusaders did which was so blatantly wrong?
 
Bobby A. Greene:
So exactly what was it that the Christian Crusaders did which was so blatantly wrong?
How about massacring in upwards of 40,000 civilians (Jews, Muslims & Eastern Christians) when the Crusaders got to Jerusalem? And that was just to kick things off. That’s not bad enough?
 
40.png
Shenango:
How about massacring in upwards of 40,000 civilians (Jews, Muslims & Eastern Christians) when the Crusaders got to Jerusalem? And that was just to kick things off. That’s not bad enough?
Hi Shenango,

Could you cite a reference or source for that “40,000” figure? Also, which of the six Holy Crusades did Christians massacre “40,000 civilians”? Was the 40,000 spread throughout all six Holy Crusades? And how many civlians where massacred by the infidels who illegally captured Jerusalem and invaded north Africa and southern Spain?
 
Every war in human history is marked by atrocities, unintended consequences, evil, greed and every other type of evil imaginable, and all made possible by “good intentions”.

Nevertheless, we should ask ourselves why we would want to beat ourselves up over the actions of people we could not control and why we should be asked to justify what they did and why. At the end of the day, most wars that are fought are out of aggressive tendencies or out of necessity. Only the western world (Catholics, western European decent especially) actually sits around worrying and apologizing for sins and perceived sins of the past. Do you think collectively Islam is sorry for the fact that it helped enslave and sell the blacks sent to pick cotton and tobacco in the US? Are they sorry for having overrun Africa, Iberian Peninsula, southern France all within 200 years of its creation? Are they sorry for waging constant war with the West from its inception to the 16th century when they were finally turned around at Vienna and slowly rolled back?

How can we look at the Crusades? The same way we can look at World War 2. We carpet bombed cities, civilian population centers, waged total global war including naval blockades that harmed civilians, sometimes didn’t take prisoners when we should have, and made allies with an empire only slightly less worse than Hitler’s (USSR). If Hitler won, do you think Germans would be sitting around wondering if Hitler should have cleansed the world of Jews, enslaved hundreds of millions, occupied entire continents? Of course not. The true mark of evil is zero recognition of past wrongs and the inability to self-reflect on past or present actions while applying any moral standard to ones actions. So the question boils down to, does the enemy you’re fighting have the capacity to look back at their victory and admit the slightest hesitation at their actions and methods employed in their war against you? If not, then you know you’re on the right side. For all the wrongs, Islam was the aggressor, the “West” employed just and unjust means to retaliate and likely saved itself. If you don’t believe me, find me an openly practicing and evangelizing Christian in one Muslim country that isn’t risking his/her life for their faith.

For a modern example of what I’m talking about (since Islam is on the march again), ask yourself if there is any prominent discussion within ANY Muslim society that the Arabs are on the wrong side of the Arab Israeli conflict? Despite the fact that Israel has had to fight 5 wars of self defense since its recreation in 1948, despite the fact that if the Arab world left it alone at its creation it would be even smaller than the current accepted 1948 boundaries, we are made to believe that they are the victims in this conflict (probably because they also all believe Jews control all the banks, media, and every other western country). It’s a sick joke. Islam is using our own morality and God-given Christian empathy as we fight ourselves over our perceived wrongs while zero similar debate takes place on their side.
 

Do you think collectively Islam is sorry for the fact that it helped enslave and sell the blacks sent to pick cotton and tobacco in the US?​

As I implied earlier, I neither beat myself up over the Crusades nor hold Islam responsible. So I feel your pain, jaydog.
Off topic Re slavery: I was told on whyislam.org that the Africans or Arabs who sold people to the slave traders were unaware of the horrible conditions American slaves endured. According to whyislam, slaves were more like servants over there, treated with kindness. It is a rare, rare thing when a poster owns up to unacceptable behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top