The War On Islam

[Anathema]

Dude, the only one who mentioned crusades was Caid, and he's a christian himself ::)

The crusade against the spanish muslims was one thing, you could argue it was defensive. But the other crusades to liberate the holy land were unnecessary (because genuine pilgrimages by christians and jews were allowed) and mainly inspired by greed. The crusaders even stabbed the Byzanthines (orthodox christians) in the back (during the 4th crusade). Besides that, taking back lands that were once yours is a counteroffense, not a defense.

[Caid Ivik]

The best crusade was done in 19th century by British, which simply bought the Palestine. Money are the best weapon, semitic merchant spirit is the thing which can make a peace between us. But as I think about first two or three crusades, as well as spanish reconquista, they served the ideology well. Others can't be considered as true crusades, Pope was usually a corrupt puppet. It was a hard hit to heart of powerful militaristic Seldjuk Empire, on the other side fanatical Al-Muwahiddin, thing very similar to Taliban. As a slavon I don't agree only with crusades against husites, Russians and Poland.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

But the other crusades to liberate the holy land were unnecessary (because genuine pilgrimages by christians and jews were allowed) and mainly inspired by greed. The crusaders even stabbed the Byzanthines (orthodox christians) in the back (during the 4th crusade). Besides that, taking back lands that were once yours is a counteroffense, not a defense.

but wasn't it greed that the muslims took the land in the first place then??

and is it wrong to take back land which was stolen from you with a counteroffensive? Do you think it was wrong of the allies to take back france from the germans?

what you are saying shows very little tollerance, and to me it seems you are favorising Islam over other religions.

[Anathema]

I'm not sure how the holy land was conquered by the muslims (not peacefully I imagine) and convictions was probably the last of their reasons to take it but the point is, the muslim rulers during the middle ages did not maltreat their christian or jewish civilians and pilgrims from Europe were free to travel to the holy land- so, it isn't comparible to the nazi occupation of France at all. In fact, the crusaders were closer to being nazis then the muslims. The crusaders killed every single muslim they encountered, not just soldiers. All part of "spreading christianity with love", I guess.

[TMA_1]

So if I had a religion that was bent on violence itself, I cannot scold it?

Who conjured up that religion? I have never heard of a man named religion killing others with weapons. I only have heard of people following religion do so.

You have always said that religion is invented, if that is so then humanity is to blame for it.

scold a gun, scold a knife, scold freedom, scold slavery, scold anything you see as bad. It wont respond to you though. Only the humans who use those things would respond to you.

yelling at an ideal, action, or philosophy will never go anywhere, and will never give you a response. You might as well yell at a television set, or a computer.lol Humans are to be scolded for the evils they commit. Religion is a tool and it isnt always for evil. You just dont like religion and are extremely biased. All I ask is that you stop being so negative about something that hasent done a damn thing to you. Oh, maybe somebody made fun of you, oh man horrible! wake up to the real world man. Religion isnt against you, some people who are religious might be, but religion isnt. For almost a year now you have been against me, and have been at many times the purpitrator. What makes you different from the people who attack you for your standards? you are a hypocrite.

[Acriku]

yelling at an ideal, action, or philosophy will never go anywhere, and will never give you a response.

Who said I needed a response? The only responses would come from the advocates of the religion. And why you choose to say it is 'yelling' is beyond my understanding. When Edric scolds capitalism, advocates of it respond. Anyone can respond, however.

You have always said that religion is invented, if that is so then humanity is to blame for it.

No, the inventors are to blame for it.

You just dont like religion and are extremely biased.

Ah, your classic way of showing how you have no argument, and can only resort to such irrelevance.

Religion isnt against you, some people who are religious might be, but religion isnt.

When did I say that religion is against me? It is one-sided, for the most part (Christianity does call me a fool, and is an example of the mutual conflict). This is when I should probably specify it to organized religion, but it'd probably make little difference to this argument.

For almost a year now you have been against me, and have been at many times the purpitrator.

Self-made delusions of the insecure mind.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I'm not sure how the holy land was conquered by the muslims (not peacefully I imagine) and convictions was probably the last of their reasons to take it but the point is, the muslim rulers during the middle ages did not maltreat their christian or jewish civilians and pilgrims from Europe were free to travel to the holy land- so, it isn't comparible to the nazi occupation of France at all. In fact, the crusaders were closer to being nazis then the muslims. The crusaders killed every single muslim they encountered, not just soldiers. All part of "spreading christianity with love", I guess.

who cares whether the muslims or jews were allowed to go there or not? it is the resources that is important! there were several important cities and the middle east has many furtile areas which are very valuable.

I do compare it to the nazi occupation of france, because I look at it as a war. and when you look at it as a war, and ignore the religion and politics, it is wrong to take the home of other people.

(besides I have always liked the roman empire, and with the muslim occupation of the middle east, the remains of the roman empire was gone :'( )

[Caid Ivik]

I'm not sure how the holy land was conquered by the muslims (not peacefully I imagine) and convictions was probably the last of their reasons to take it but the point is, the muslim rulers during the middle ages did not maltreat their christian or jewish civilians and pilgrims from Europe were free to travel to the holy land- so, it isn't comparible to the nazi occupation of France at all. In fact, the crusaders were closer to being nazis then the muslims. The crusaders killed every single muslim they encountered, not just soldiers. All part of "spreading christianity with love", I guess.

You have a very weird view on that world. Palestine was conquered from Byzantines in 637, just five years after Muhammad's death, by kalifa Umar. In that time, Arabs were a barbarian horde comparable to turcotatarian Avars, which stormed Europe in that time. Yet about thirty years later we can talk about arab dominion as an empire, when kalifa Muavija Umaj put his throne to Damask. Umajs and later House Abbas were in fact positive leaders, caring for their empire, culture, building, art, welfare etc.. After Harun al-Rashid (+809) the empire split to about 7 separate empires, most of them later conquered by Fatimas. But as many empires, even these hired nomadic tribes to defend their borders - and these tribes took the rule.

Turcotatarian tribe of Seldjuks was a such mercenary tribe in service of kalifa of Bagdad, Massud Abbas. These overthrew him in 1040, installing a military regime. Seldjuk empire quickly split, but was able to show its aggressivity: quickly attacked Byzantines, reaching nearly the Constantinopole itself. In every new sultanate (Iconia, Halab, Damask, Mosul...) citizens were exploited, non-muslim religions banned (in Umajj/Abbas empire was a dhimma, law of tolerance). And stability of last european superpower on the east, Byzantium, shattered. Crusade was needed, otherwise Turks would conquer Constantinopole 400 years earlier.

[Anathema]

@ Caid: And the fact that the crusaders took Constantinople for themselves in 1204 didn't contribute to the erosion of Byzanthium?

I know you're better informed on most historical issues then me, so I won't challenge most of what you said. I do know for fact however that pilgrimages to Palestine were rarely held back before the crusades. It comes as no surprise they changed their policies after the crusader thieves declared war on them, but king Richard of England managed to cut a deal with Saladin of the Turks to allow pilgrimages again. 10 years later however it was apparently necessary to launch another pointless crusade.

@Harkonnen: I take it that by the Roman empire you mean the Byzanthines (also known as Eastern Roman empire). If you hate muslims because they were responsible for their demise why don't you hate the crusaders for conquering Constantinople?

By saying it was the local recources that matter you admit that the crusades were actually launched because of greed and not for religious significance of the area (wich was open for travelers anyway). Thank you for that.

Plus, the crusaders were catholic westerners, and the muslims took the holy lands from orthodox Byzanthines, so it's not even a counteroffensive (or a defensive action for that matter) but an act of agression.

[Caid Ivik]

Attack on Byzantines was about a century later, not saying that whole 4th crusade was payed on it. Maybe first two were real crusades, but for example 3rd was a business of monarchs, which tried to improve popularity. In 13th century, crusades against islam were a thing of history, like when EdricO now vows for revolution. When Hungary launched a crusade in 1211, only minimal numbers joined. However, when Venecia called for "crusade" against their market rivals, hordes came. It became a word to describe and excuse a war. When orders of Schwertbruder and Teutons made a crusade against polish parts of Prussia, was there a religious reason?

About pilgrims, before Seldjuks they could enter Palestine nearly freely. In limits of dhimma law, of course, but with minimal threat. But Seldjuks were fanatics, they saw christian pilgrims as spies. Seldjuks only slowly regained power and reconquered Edessa, what caused other crusade, de facto defensive. Then came egyptian sultan Saladin (Kurdi, in fact) and threatened Palestine. Richard III. and Friedrich I. had enough internal problems, so they tried to turn view of aristocracy on their "holy war". But including this one, no other crusade was held by religious reasons.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

@Harkonnen: I take it that by the Roman empire you mean the Byzanthines (also known as Eastern Roman empire). If you hate muslims because they were responsible for their demise why don't you hate the crusaders for conquering Constantinople?

By saying it was the local recources that matter you admit that the crusades were actually launched because of greed and not for religious significance of the area (wich was open for travelers anyway). Thank you for that.

Plus, the crusaders were catholic westerners, and the muslims took the holy lands from orthodox Byzanthines, so it's not even a counteroffensive (or a defensive action for that matter) but an act of agression.

Acctually I have also read a little about the crusades. and the orthodox asked the catholics for help to defeat the muslims. and the catholics wanted to help their fellow christians.

maybe the catholics did take constantinopel, but that was not what destroyed the eastern roman empire, it was the muslim aggresion towards Byzantine. (and I didn't say I hate muslims)

and all wars are about greed. Don't you think it was greedy of the muslims to conquer the land they did?

no of course you don't because that didn't have anything to do with greed. the muslims only wanted all people to have access to Jeruslam...come on we are talking about muslims. who are so intolerant that they do not tolerate any other religion than their own in their countries. if you think that that didn't have anything to do with greed, than neither do Hitler's occupation of most of Europe, because that was only politics. it was not greed. >:(

[Anathema]

@Caid: No it wasn't, look it up if you don't believe me. The crusaders invaded Constantinople in 1204 and founded the Latin empire (and installed a guy called Van Vlaanderen, a Dutch person btw), wich lasted till 1261. Even after the Greeks took back Constantinople the empire still was under continuous pressure from not only the Ottomans but also the Venitians and Genoese, both catholic. It was the Ottomans who finished Byzanthines in 1453, but the catholic christians did contribute a lot to the erosion of their empire.

Btw, I never heard of any Prussian crusades against the Polish being done. Why was that? The Polish were catholics themselves.

@Harkonnen: I know that the Byzanthines were pleased at first with the crusades (why wouldn't they, if it takes off the pressure on their borders?).

And let's get a few things clear. Not all muslims are absolutly intolerant of other religions, not now and not back then. I don't think all muslims are rightgeous or peacefull, or ever were. Nor do I favour Islam over christianity or judaism. You claim you don't hate muslims yet in any post in wich I see you mentioning Islam you say it is vile or barbaric. Why is that?

[Emperor Harkonnen]

because I need to choose one of the sides. I never manage to stay neutral so I have quit trying to do that. I never manage to have a neutral attitude about stuff. I naturally chose christianity because that is the religion which I believe is right.

We are discussing here, and therefore I need to tell arguments against Islam and in favor to christianity.

sorry if it seemed I said that it is vile and barbaric. I do not look upon it as a primitive brutal religion, but I do look upon it as a warrior religion(don't missunderstand, I know that it is much more) due to the example of Muhammed who was a warrior.

Muslims do not have the values which christanity got.

[Caid Ivik]

@Caid: No it wasn't, look it up if you don't believe me. The crusaders invaded Constantinople in 1204 and founded the Latin empire (and installed a guy called Van Vlaanderen, a Dutch person btw), wich lasted till 1261. Even after the Greeks took back Constantinople the empire still was under continuous pressure from not only the Ottomans but also the Venitians and Genoese, both catholic. It was the Ottomans who finished Byzanthines in 1453, but the catholic christians did contribute a lot to the erosion of their empire.

Btw, I never heard of any Prussian crusades against the Polish being done. Why was that? The Polish were catholics themselves.

Balduin von Flanders, well, I don't know if we can talk about Dutch as a nation. But that doesn't matter. I'm not sure where I told something else. Byzantines were a hard concurence for Venecia, "crusade" word was used for their attack only to excuse it. And lure some foreign paladins, as well. Like Balduin I. himself was, for example.

Same for aggression of german knight orders against slavonic states. When emperor Zigmund Luxembourg called for a crusade against husites, then ok, we can see some reason. But why would a knight with black cross on white shirt fight other catholic? Good question - if you would live then, I would like to ask them. But it is fact that it took two centuries until in 1520 Polish finally won over the german orders. You know, even today we would use words like "defense against terror" for usual military attacks.

[Anathema]

Well you said that the attack on Constantinople was a century later then what I said.

His Dutch name would be Boudewijn van Vlaanderen. And there wasn't really a Dutch nation back then, but as you can see we were already plotting for world domination 1000 years ago ;D

[Caid Ivik]

Well, first one was in 1089, I think, and next two were marine. But time changed, ideals of ending 11th century were obsolete on the end of 12th. See the world of 2000 and 1900, it is a way different.

Seeing your former naval empire, you were close ;D

[Timenn]

ISLAM is a vile religion. its followers still live in the 7th century. their supreme example was Muhammad, who was a killer the likes of Hitler, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. Muhammad raised high the sword, and brought it down in a sea of blood.

and he is the Supreme Example that all Muslims aspire to be like.

and before you anti-christian trolls come in with your flames (yawn...crusades...yawn), JESUS (not some murderous pope) is the supreme example for Christians, and JESUS killed no one.

btw- i know this will not get through your thick skulls, but I'll say it just to type something:

the crusades lasted 200 years and they were Christians DEFENDING AGAINST INVASION of Muslims. Thats right. MUSLIMS invaded Europe, and pushed all the way to Spain.

THE CRUSADES WERE A JUST WAR YOU IGNORANT ATHEISTS WHO USE THE CRUSADES AS A CRUTCH AGAINST CHRISTIANITY

I'm SOOOO GLAD the Crusades happened, or this entire earth would be Islamic

Funny. If it wasn't because some names are different, I would think I heard Bin Laden, or any other fundamentalistic terrorist speaking

[emprworm]

ISLAM is a vile religion. its followers still live in the 7th century. their supreme example was Muhammad, who was a killer the likes of Hitler, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. Muhammad raised high the sword, and brought it down in a sea of blood.

and he is the Supreme Example that all Muslims aspire to be like.

and before you anti-christian trolls come in with your flames (yawn...crusades...yawn), JESUS (not some murderous pope) is the supreme example for Christians, and JESUS killed no one.

btw- i know this will not get through your thick skulls, but I'll say it just to type something:

the crusades lasted 200 years and they were Christians DEFENDING AGAINST INVASION of Muslims. Thats right. MUSLIMS invaded Europe, and pushed all the way to Spain.

THE CRUSADES WERE A JUST WAR YOU IGNORANT ATHEISTS WHO USE THE CRUSADES AS A CRUTCH AGAINST CHRISTIANITY

I'm SOOOO GLAD the Crusades happened, or this entire earth would be Islamic

Funny. If it wasn't because some names are different, I would think I heard Bin Laden, or any other fundamentalistic terrorist speaking

but instead, you heard the historical truth of Islam speaking. ANd yes, it does sound like terrorism....because it IS terrorism. Tell me, what is not terroristic about the life of Muhammad, the supreme example of Islam?

[Caid Ivik]

Islam is expansionistic and aggressive religion, but in fact it is just twisted view on same principle like christianity - serving God... And maybe Muhammad and today's terrorists see the physical view, but many remain in ideological fights.

[SurlyPIG]

emprworm, I believe he was referring to your description of Islam as vile, and the cruscades as defense. And you have to admit, Islamic terrorists say the same things about Christianity/Judaism and America/Israel.

[Timenn]

You don't have to explain that. He knew exactly what I meant. But this was just one of his tricks to avoid it