1
   

The Crusades

 
 
physicistphilosopher
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2008 07:53 pm
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;61196 wrote:
How long did the Moors remain in conquest of Spain vs. the length of time of any conquest of the Mid-east by the Christians?

How much of Coastal Africa was also conquered, as well as Spain?

How many Muslim people were sold into slavery by the Christian invaders vs. the amount of Christians sold into slavery by Muslim traders?

Please understand. I am in no way defending the actions of the crusaders. I am pointing out what I see as the fact that their wrongs are loudly and oft pointed out while the wrongs of others are generally not. As such, I am just desiring what I see as appropriate context.

There is enough blame to go around. Neither side is that innocent and neither side is that much more guilty than the other that its atrocities should be pointed out to the exclusion of the others.


Come on man, love your guilt! It is the Christian thing to do. That and participate in unsolicited invasions either by armies or more annoyingly, missionaries.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 05:54 am
@physicistphilosopher,
physicistphilosopher;62815 wrote:
or more annoyingly, missionaries.


I know this may surprise some people on this site but i have several friends who go on missionary trips, fortunately they aren't the kind that tell Africans to not use contraceptives. :thumbup:

They go to build houses for the homeless which is applaudable. Smile
physicistphilosopher
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 12:39 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;62846 wrote:
I know this may surprise some people on this site but i have several friends who go on missionary trips, fortunately they aren't the kind that tell Africans to not use contraceptives. :thumbup:

They go to build houses for the homeless which is applaudable. Smile


Well then, I shall have to be more precise in my diction: those who, as a profession or an excursion, pursue with zeal proselytizing.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 02:22 pm
@physicistphilosopher,
physicistphilosopher;62876 wrote:
Well then, I shall have to be more precise in my diction: those who, as a profession or an excursion, pursue with zeal proselytizing.


Make no note of it, I wasn't saying anything against you, merely blathering to myself again.
0 Replies
 
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 11:45 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms wrote:
yes.There were at least 9 crusades! How many times did the moors invade spain? Also the scale of the crusades were much greater than the moorish (Islamic) conquest of southern spain.


When you start in the middle, you only get one side of the story.

There were seven Christian Crusades.

The Islamic crusades began when Muhammad was ridiculed by his family and fellow residents of Mecca. In 622 AD he fled to Medina where a band of tribal warriors accepted him and his ideas and pledged their loyalty. Once he had a following, he preyed on nearby towns and travelers until his band was strong enough to impose their will on those towns and force their conversion to Islam.

Those who his band encountered or sought out had three options (the same they have in Islamic countries today): convert to Islam, become total slaves (dhimmi) with payment of the head tax, or be beheaded/killed. If you convert from Islam to another religion, you are under a death sentence. Any muslim can kill you under Islamic law. At that time, much of the Middle East population was Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian. Between 622 and 1095 town after town and region after region fell to the waves of bloody Islamic imperialistic onslaught. The empire built on this pattern eventually spanned from the Atlantic ocean to India. The Christian Crusades were an act of defense. If they hadn't happend you'd be on your knees five times a day facing Mecca.

How many millions of non-islamic people were raped, slaughtered, and dispossessed to make this happen? Why did it take so long for the Christians in Europe to awaken and fight back?
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 11:57 am
@physicistphilosopher,
physicistphilosopher;62876 wrote:
Well then, I shall have to be more precise in my diction: those who, as a profession or an excursion, pursue with zeal proselytizing.


As shown by the Islamic authorities in many countries, building houses for the poor may be considered proselytizing, especially when Christians are known to be charged to let people know who they are by the way the live their lives and treat others.
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 06:07 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;63454 wrote:


There were seven Christian Crusades.

Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 11:17 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;63456 wrote:
wrong.



As you said in another thread. It's all a matter of perception.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 01:35 pm
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;63489 wrote:
As you said in another thread. It's all a matter of perception.


Math is not up for debate.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 08:37 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;63490 wrote:
Math is not up for debate.


Oh come on, using calculus you can make anything equal anything else.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:59 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;63502 wrote:
Oh come on, using calculus you can make anything equal anything else.


The longer you hold off that you were wrong the less credibility you will have, so continue this little tirade of denial. Just shows you can't accept it when you're wrong.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 10:12 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;63514 wrote:
The longer you hold off that you were wrong the less credibility you will have, so continue this little tirade of denial. Just shows you can't accept it when you're wrong.


I don't have time to do the research to arrive at a definitive answer that might of might not match yours. Since I've made that choice, I'll accept your count. However, the fact is the Crusades were defensive and were of a lesser geographic and coersive extent than the slaughter that preceded them coming from the Islamic world.

I can accept when I'm wrong and I take responsibility for my choice and action. Do you?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 10:22 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;63584 wrote:
I don't have time to do the research to arrive at a definitive answer that might of might not match yours. Since I've made that choice, I'll accept your count. However, the fact is the Crusades were defensive and were of a lesser geographic and coersive extent than the slaughter that preceded them coming from the Islamic world.

I can accept when I'm wrong and I take responsibility for my choice and action. Do you?


There is still hope for you yet. Smile

And yes I do take responsibility for my choices and actions, I do admit when I am wrong but not as often as I should.


But I will say this, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:45 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;63586 wrote:
There is still hope for you yet. Smile

And yes I do take responsibility for my choices and actions, I do admit when I am wrong but not as often as I should.


But I will say this, 2 wrongs don't make a right.


Now who's quoting aphorisms?

Is self-defense wrong?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 02:31 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;63589 wrote:
Now who's quoting aphorisms?


huh?

Quote:
Is self-defense wrong?


No, self-preservation is not immoral, it is intended.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 01:11 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;63596 wrote:

No, self-preservation is not immoral, it is intended.


Then why do you say two wrongs don't make a right? By making this parallel you are saying that self defense in the form of the military action by western civilization was wrong.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 05:55 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;63679 wrote:
Then why do you say two wrongs don't make a right? By making this parallel you are saying that self defense in the form of the military action by western civilization was wrong.


Self-defense is neither wrong nor right. Nor was the crusade "self-defense", in what way is raping and killing civilian populations considered "self-defense"? In what way is the conquest of desired lands considered "self-defense"?

Retaliation is not self-defense.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:22 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;63693 wrote:
Self-defense is neither wrong nor right. Nor was the crusade "self-defense", in what way is raping and killing civilian populations considered "self-defense"? In what way is the conquest of desired lands considered "self-defense"?

Retaliation is not self-defense.
war - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c: variance , odds 3

retaliation - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionarydefense - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:16 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;63708 wrote:
Stop being a hypocrite. The lands Islam had were torn from the Christian world.


Whether it's justified is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Justified retaliation is still retaliation.

Quote:
It always amazes me when someone who says there are no rules, quotes rules, or is surprised when someone who believes in a set of rules decides to revert to an older set of rules like an eye for an eye. Response to aggression is not retaliation it is defense.


A retaliation is a response to aggression as well.

When one leaves their own borders, it is no longer "self-defense".





Quote:
You are too steeped in the androgynous teachings of politically correct societal groups to be objective if you believe response to aggression is retaliation.


Never heard that one before. :eek:


Quote:
When someone attacks you, the only choices you have are to respond or accept their will. Accepting their will usually means you become slaves to their society or their sovereign.


Again, leaving your borders after the fact, to invade another nation is not self-defense, no matter how you try to justify it.












So after reading those definitions have you been forced to conclude they aren't the same thing?
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 11:35 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;63713 wrote:

When one leaves their own borders, it is no longer "self-defense".

Again, leaving your borders after the fact, to invade another nation is not self-defense, no matter how you try to justify it.



Bull.
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Crusades
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 11:12:19