The Crusades was an integral part of the fight between Islam's desire to dominate the world, suffice it to say. Don't use diversion tactics, please.
38 comments
@jc: I don't understand it either. You'd think a game featuring wizards, dwarves, etc. would get as much flack as Harry Potter.
The fundies probably all play as Human Alliance scum though.
Why don't I ever see this weird crap in WoW forums...
Last time I checked, the pope declared the crusades to remove the muslims... So stfu and learn some history.
World of Wankers (sorry WoW mods, but that's what you are becoming to be known as) seems to be attracting charcters that are wierder than the game.
The Crusades were all about Pope Urban having power over the European Kings for his own personal gain.
Before that, Islam, Christianity, Judaism and non-belief were in harmony.
Yes... He is technically right...
It was basically like Hitler vs. Stalin... Both want to rule the world, but ran into each other and fought each other to a grinding halt.
However the main argument was "not" to capture jerusalem but to capture constantinople and control the Silk road.
The muslims were threatening to capture it and already were a problem before the Byzantine empire asked for help from the pope who promptly besieged Constantinople on the way to the crusades.
Of course we don't know if this theory is correct since that period was really screwed up in terms of belief.
Gee, this fundie really needs to learn history.
The Crusades were preached in 1095 by Pope Urban II, in response to a plea for help from the Eastern Roman Emperor (Alexios Komnenos) following the decisive (Seljuk Turkish) Muslim victory at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.
Were they a Christian-Muslim war? Sure (except the Fourth Crusade, which was against other Christians). Were they a response to Muslim attempts at world domination? At best, the point can be argued.
Less charitable people (such as myself) give such an argument a big FAIL. The Crusades were, first and foremost, a political-military event. Religion was the excuse, not the motivator.
It's like: 'What's the difference between a duck.'
Something's missing - like commonsense, intelligence, contrast, complementarity.... I dunno. T'ain't complete.
No, the fight between Islam's desire to dominate the world ended (for that period) when Charles Martel defeated the Caliphate in the 800s.
Another point where it ended (once the Ottoman Empire sort of restarted it) was in the 1600s against Vienna.
The Crusades really didn't have much to do with it besides a bunch of Western tards wanting to "liberate the Holy Land."
Protip: When you use the word "between", you are expected to provide not one, but two dependent clauses. Separated by "and", usually.
Not a fundie statement, per se.
I'm always baffled by this common thread about the crusades. The Muslims WERE equally responsible. Neither side was innocent. There's a long history of provocation on both sides, there.
I'll agree that neither side was innocent, because the only way to be innocent in war is the way that gets you killed, but anything that the Muslims did would really only have provoked the Christians if the Christians wanted it to. People of different religions coexisted in the Muslim cities, it wasn't a case of 'be Muslim or gtfo,' or even 'we'll threaten you with a sword until you become Muslim or gtfo.' So it's not as if the Christians came in to defend their people from actual bad things going on, they came in because they couldn't stand other people having "their" stuff, even though they were miles away from it. It's one of those situations where even though there is blame on both sides, there's more on one side than the other.
The crusades were a fight to dominate Jerusalem and Constantinople, thus dominating the trade routes between the middle east, Europe and the Mediterranean.
It had nothing to do with saving the world from anyone, just killing lots and lots of people for riches and power, as usual.
BTW the Christians got their asses kicked back to Europe and the Muslims didn't end up dominating the world, however the rise of the Ottoman Empire was huge and remained incredibly powerful until the 17th century or so. See? reading a little history can keep you from spewing bullshit, however I wonder whether you can read at all.
Oh, so sad.
I found a little dependent clause struggling for breath in my back garden. I tried to revive it; I gave it conjunctions and a full stop. Then it saw that I was on fstdt.net and it screamed, 'No, don't make me go back!'
Well, I fully understood its fear of getting mired back into the bullshit from whence it came. I bought it a bus pass and fixed it a cheese and pickle sarnie for its trip. As the bus pulled out into the warm, humid night air, I saluted the brave clause in hope it will find another dependent clause that will fill the void in its anthropomorphized life.
1) @ thelivingguano - Here's your free internet.
2) no, I haven't had too much wine to post, why're you asking?
You can't be between just one thing. Who's using the diversio tactics?
So, it's ok for Christianity to desire to dominate the world, but not for Islam? Who made you the kings of the world? And don't say God, as Allah means God, too. God is telling them to rule the world, God is telling you to rule the world. He has got to make up his mind, that God dude. Or maybe he wants you to cooperate in ruling the world? Nah, that would be too benign.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.