Hatred hurled from the left towards Christians, why?

Tell an Israelite, that's a poor response to my point.

Christians vs. Muslims, let's not get off topic.

Unless I'm mistaken, the first Crusade, which, from memory, was started by Pope Urban II in response to a Byzantine request for help against the Turks,

and the other early Crusades led to the other Crusades, or at least those directed towards the Levant, which were all started for various reasons often involving the defense and continuation of the Christian kingdoms, counties, etc. in the Holy Land.

Kinda like... Israel and its settling, which seems to be drawing some, pardon the pun, fire. However everyone's cool with that... except of course the Palestinians.



That particular part of the story started around 470AD, but you guys did that to yourselves



That was not the reason for "expansion and control" and you know it. Funny how the Muslims dealt with the Christian armies coming back... coming back three times.

So Israel's expansion isn't p*ssing off its neighbors?

Ah yes, BibleFights!

You guys can have your war. I'll sit back and watch

ahh, yes! help "against" the turks, by that i suppose you mean help "conquering" the turks.

continuation = expansion ?

You are obviously convoluting and dodging my original point regarding the Crusades, which has nothing at all to do with Israel, and, since I am not Israeli, I do not have to answer for there actions, therefore your argument is tangential.

Historically speaking, and you have not satisfactorily answered to any of the points I have made for several posts now.

No I mean: "Dear Pope, these Turks are about to overthrow the Byzantine empire and it's not 1453 yet, so get your ass over here and distract them!"

The Outremer was constantly threatened by Muslim armies, they were both conducting endless military campaigns for survival, and if conquest was included, I can assure you it was not on the part of the Christians alone.

No, I am taking two similar situations and putting them under the same light, wondering why I am getting two totally different answers.

Expansion into Judeo-Christian lands.... bad. (Muslims, crusades)

Judeo-Christian expansion into other lands.... not bad? (Israel's recent works and the west half of the friggin' planet)

Although attempts at reconciliation after the East-West Schism between the Catholic Western Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church had failed, Alexius I hoped for a positive response from Urban II and got it, although it turned out to be more expansive and less helpful than he had expected.

The Muslims played a huge part, no denying that.

Israel has some small valid claim to the land due to the fact that it was the land of their ancestors, a big difference, however, I would not declare my full support for them based solely on that and I really do not wish to get into a debate about it. Back on topic, it is you who seems to have a double standard here, unless you are just drawing comparisons to Israel for the sake of argument:

Christians take (previously Christian) Muslim lands by force= bad?

Muslims take the same (never Muslim) Christian lands by fore= not bad?

If anyone here is morally justified, it is the Christians, IMO.

Israel has some small valid claim to the land due to the fact that it was the land of their ancestors, a big difference, however, I would not declare my full support for them based solely on that and I really do not wish to get into a debate about it. Back on topic, it is you who seems to have a double standard here, unless you are just drawing comparisons to Israel for the sake of argument:

Christians take (previously Christian) Muslim lands by force= bad?

Muslims take the same (never Muslim) Christian lands by fore= not bad?

If anyone here is morally justified, it is the Christians, IMO.

Yes, some small valid claim. However if they really want peace, they need to back off. Can we at least agree there?

Too many parallels to draw. At this point in time, yes... bad. If you want any sort of peace, that is.

Again, not like the Christians are innocent of this. Bad? Yes. Agreed there.

If the Muslims give back all the land they took, will the Christians give back all the land they took? IMO there was no moral justification in it whatsoever. Two "religions of peace" fighting to the death isn't morally justifiable. Entertaining, yes. Hilarious, yes. Moral, hell no.

Who owned it before the Christians? At one point in time Christianity didn't exist at all. So where did the land come from, it had to come from somewhere. Would it be moral if the Pagans suddenly rose up and reconquered their previously owned land killing men women and children in the process all in the name of their gods?

It depends, less agressive, okay why not, but you don't expect them to leave?

You won't get peace either way. The Crusades acted as a preventative measure against Turkish expansion, which would have spread into Catholic Europe after it was done with the Byzantines. Add on religious persecution It's not peace or war, it's the most or least advantagous war for them.

So the Crusades would not have happened without Muslim expansionism, which means that Muslim expansionism was as big a cause of the Crusades as Christian expansionism, if not more.

We do a proper job of killing the original inhabitants when we take over land.

I really can't find any moral outrage or contempt towards Christians for conquering land that was taken from them.

You can't please all the people all of the time. Stop trying to take back land and protect that which you have. You lost some property... happened to a lot of countries and leaders. Instead of trying to take it back, focus on keeping the land you have left. Israel isn't exactly in friendly company.

In other words, BibleFight.

Neither can I, but to be at it for damn near a millenia... c'mon.

The noticable problem being that there are no pagans to rise up and conquer their previously owned land.

The Crusades were not a modern war, they were fought by contemporary standards, which is going to include occasional sacking, raping, or even exterminating of entire populaces,

not matter who's fighting or what the circumstances are. By medieval standards, the Crusades weren't particularly bloody at all.

Yes there are, but it's irrelevant regardless.

...and yet you claim the crusades are not "morally reprehensible"?

Do you know anything about medieval history? The Europeans were particularly violent at the time but even for them the Crusades were very bloody and on a scale much larger to what they were used to.

Take out neopagans and wackos, how many direct descendants of pagans who can trace their pagan lineage back for a few generations are there?

The Crusades as a war were justified.

I'd hope I know a fair deal more than you. Give me five important instances of large scale killing of civilians besides the capture of Jerusalem.

Raping women and killing children who have no concept of the war they are killed in the name of. Is this justified to you?

Hope is exactly it too.

Virtually every city captured involved death of many innocent civilians.