The Crusades Weren't One-Sided

W

White Rhyno

Registered Member
Some public school curriculums currently emphasize how 'evil' the Christians were in the Crusades, beating up on the peaceful Muslims. All you liberal textbook writers, I've got a shock for you. IT WASN'T ONE-SIDED! The Muslims actually started it by stopping the Christian pilgrims from coming to the Holy Land. Well, they might say, 'the Muslims were only reclaiming their rightful homeland.' Yeah right. The Christians/Jews were there since about, uh, 1600 years before the Muslim faith even got STARTED. Come on. Many atrocities in the Crusades were committed by both sides, and neither side was blameless, but it wasn't quite like the lib textbooks say. The Muslims weren't innocent little piggies then, and aren't now.
 
White Rhyno said:
Some public school curriculums currently emphasize how 'evil' the Christians were in the Crusades, beating up on the peaceful Muslims. All you liberal textbook writers, I've got a shock for you. IT WASN'T ONE-SIDED! The Muslims actually started it by stopping the Christian pilgrims from coming to the Holy Land. Well, they might say, 'the Muslims were only reclaiming their rightful homeland.' Yeah right. The Christians/Jews were there since about, uh, 1600 years before the Muslim faith even got STARTED. Come on. Many atrocities in the Crusades were committed by both sides, and neither side was blameless, but it wasn't quite like the lib textbooks say. The Muslims weren't innocent little piggies then, and aren't now.
Click to expand...

Well you have shown a complete lack of knowledge of history here.
 
The Xian Crusades were not different than the Muslims Crusades - people hell bent on stealing what was someone else's, mainly land. Constantinople was built by a Xian Roman Empire after all, the Dome of the Rock was a Jewish Temple after all, Sydney was Aboriginal Dreamtime, New York was native American sacred nature narratives, Oda Nobunaga at the battle of Okehazama, etc.. etc.. etc... the list could really go one FOREVER.

What are Crusades if not just one group of people killing another group and stealing their stuff? As SAM has pointed out, pretty much everyone believes in something God-like and you can bet your arse they pray to that God in the heat of battle....
 
Last edited:
Muslims aren't kosher. It's true through; history books often enjoy portraying Europe as an evil empire. It was way more provoked than pogroms ever were.
 
pjdude1219 said:
Well you have shown a complete lack of knowledge of history here.
Click to expand...

No.

His method of presentation is odd, and I'm not sure about the guy, but the Crusades were essentially a defensive response. Sorry. :shrug:
 
GeoffP said:
No.

His method of presentation is odd, and I'm not sure about the guy, but the Crusades were essentially a defensive response. Sorry. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Nope failed again. Every single crusade was offensive in nature. The Muslim responses were defensive in nature. Your hatred for all things islam is clouding your judgment.
 
That is your usual level of nonsense. Interesting non-information, pj. Tell me: who was in the ME before islam arrived? Why were the Crusades preached in 1095? What had been going on for 400 years before?

You need to define several terms before you can speak on the issue. Start with Manichaean and Assyrian Christian. Then you can share your opinion.
 
Tell me: who was in the ME before islam arrived?
Click to expand...
lots of people what time frame are we talking about. The jews, in small numbers, for one who fought with the muslims during the crusades.
 
You have failed to identify the above terms, and their significance to the Crusades.

Round two.
 
GeoffP said:
You have failed to identify the above terms, and their significance to the Crusades.

Round two.
Click to expand...

The influences pretty much irrelevant to the fact that the crusades were Offensive. the only defensive part in the entire crusades was the first part of the first crusade in which the crusaders help the Byzantine empire against the seljuk turks. after that they pushed in to the holy land to conquer it. because they wanted to control it.
 
You have failed to identify the above terms, and the basis of their significance to the Crusades.

Round three.

Hint 1: what was a Melkite?
 
I worked on countless text books for highschools while I was at a publishing company, and it's true, they are crazy liberal and biased against white christians. Any student that graduates highschool these days has to first confirm that they agree white christians are, and always have been, evil dirty scum, and that every other group of people are miraculously great in some subtle understated way. The browner the better.
 
GeoffP said:
You have failed to identify the above terms, and the basis of their significance to the Crusades.

Round three.

Hint 1: what was a Melkite?
Click to expand...

There not significant. Well maybe to you they are but to the crusades not so much.
 
Then I regret to inform you that you have failed. Those territories were Christian states before a series of events from about 700-1000 AD. But I suppose you don't know anything about that either. A shame.

I'm willing to give you a passing grade if you look up the word dhimmi. Go on; I promise you won't learn anything that will affect your outlook.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Before the first terrorist was born the Persians were Zoroastrian and the Turks were Hellenes and later Christians.

Then the terrorists came and forced everyone to convert to Islam or else they were killed.
Click to expand...

The Persians have been the same for thousands of years, open a book sometime. Even after adopting Islam, it wasn't a couple of generations before a Persian moved into the Caliphate. If the Mongols had not been so ruthless, they would never have been toppled. The Arabs were hardly around for a century or so. They were not the real empire buildiers. The Turks were shamanists who came from the same region of the world as the Mongols. :rolleyes:

White Rhyno said:
And BTW, you're absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss.:D

spidergoat said:
It was more like an economic war, since pilgrimages were a huge moneymaker for the church.
Click to expand...

The Turks were secularists. They wouldn't give a rats ass who came or went for pilgrimage. The first crusade was the barbarians getting itchy for warfare and Peter the Hermit stoking their flames. "Save the holy land from the infidels!" etc.
 
S.A.M. said:
You're kidding, they were eating the Muslims. Heard of Peter the Hermit?
Click to expand...

You're kidding me: one incident means that the Crusades weren't defensive? The Crusaders went there because they couldn't get picked muslim anywhere else? :rolleyes:

S.A.M. said:
The Turks were secularists.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Your points do nothing to detract from the central conclusion that the Crusades were a defensive response to Arab invasion. Sorry. Fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top