"While I realize that Islam has been violent throughout its history, so has Judeism and Christianity (think Crusades)."
The Crusades were nothing but Jews and Christians fighting back against brutal Muslim aggression, defending themselves and their bretheren in the Middle East and The Holy Land from annhialation at the hands of the barbaric Saracen and Moorish dogs. You human piece of puke. I have chunks of jerks like you in my stool. Go f*%k you and your Mooselip homo ass-buddies. You make me sick, may you rot in Hell.
51 comments
"The Crusades were nothing but Jews and Christians fighting back against brutal Muslim aggression"
And even if that was true, that would prove neither was violent how exactly?
If it weren't for political and economic conditions in Europe, the Crusades may well have happened at a different date or not at all.
It's not to say that the Muslims were perfect, but the Crusaders were definitely the aggressor and no amount of revisionist history will change that fact.
also, @TB Tabby thanks for the link. Not that the fundie will ever read it, but at least it'll give people here something interesting to read. I love Saladin. If I had a time machine he'd be the first person I'd use it to meet.
But it's their Holy Land, too!
And how would you explain away the centuries of forced conversions and massacres that Christians committed against pagan followers in the Middle Ages?
I'm not an expert, but weren't the Jews aligned with the Muslims during the crusades?
Oh, and I always love the insults for not agreeing, such a convincing argument.
Defending is something you do when someone attacks you in your home.
Actually, good citizens of FSTDT, please remember that the first crusade was indeed launched in 1096 at the invitation of the Byzantine Emperor, who was under attack by Muslim invaders. Not that this is an intellectually impressive post, to be sure.
"Defending themselves"
Which involved them invading Muslim lands and coming from, say, France to do it. France, which was NOT being attacked.
Gargantua exhibits the astute grasp of history typical of others on Free Republic, that being dumb-pig-fuck-ignorant.
What, someone hit a little too close to home, so you have to fight back with aggression?
"Christians fighting"
And again, how does this show that Christianity has not been violent? Jesus said to love thy neighbor and love thy enemies.
I'd agree that a lot of liberals have a simplistic view of the Crusades as pure aggression, but this is retarded. Every time a Crusade failed to reach the intended target, it turned on local Jews.
Sorry fundies, your Jewish/Christian pseudo-alliance is less than 50 years old.
"Wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens [i.e., Muslims] were beheaded...In the Temple of Solomon, the horses waded in [Jewish] blood up to their knees, nay, up to the bridle. It was a just and marvelous judgement of God, that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers."
The Crusades: Blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne.
@campbunny: The Byzantines were defending themselves. The Western European Crusaders were, at best, defending the Byzantines and at worst starting the fighting.
There were rare occasions where Europeans DID defend territory in Europe from invading Muslims, but the official First Crusade was not one of them. It was an invasion, and it didn't do the Byzantines much good either since instead of only getting trained soldiers like they wanted the Byzantines got every peasant who could swing a sword reasonably well and thought he'd go to heaven for it.
Well, the Crusades tended to kill whoever was unlucky enough to be where they decided to quit walking. They tended not to care whether they were Muslims, Jews, Christians, or whatever. One didn't so much command an army the size of a Crusade as much as steer it.
Um... didn't the Muslims often defend the Jews against the Christian crusaders?
Correct me if I'm wrong, here.
I don't know why people always drag in the crusades to highlight Christian violence and agression. All you have to do is pick a random decade and see how the European Christians treated each other.... or native Americans... or native Africans.... or native Asians.
Sadly, the tendency toward warfare and conquest isn't a Christian nor a Muslim characteristic. It's a human characteristic.
I may not be a fan of muslim aggression (having been shot at by them) but they DID protect libraries in all the important liturature of the time FROM Christians.
Hurray for christian progress... Oh wait. Dark ages, thats right.
Why are you named 'throat'?
History fail.
Muslims have done less forcible converting than Christians because tradition makes it more profitable to the rulers to have a bunch of dhimmis...and India was too much for the Muchals to tackle. In terms of simple violence...you're probably tied, though Christians had almost seven hundred extra years and all that Roman conquest before the Muslims got started, and does it count if they're killing one another? So I dunno.
Jews didn't get much slaughtering accomplished while they didn't have a country, but they've been back in form again for a while now.
It's pretty much just a thing people do, kill other people. Sucks, huh?
Incidentally, 'Saracen' and 'Moorish' are nice archaic words. Too bad they're rather rude.
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.
