The Crusades

Bull.

A retaliation is a response to aggression as well.

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

We can stop reading at this.

This "retaliation" was defense of the Christian world.

Frankly it was nothing less than self-defense. The Christian world was perceived as coming to an end, there was a huge amount of milleniumism fervor going on about. With their religion, nations and entire existence legitimately threatened by Muslims on both side how is not protecting their boarders and taking back land that was taken from them not self-defense? You seem to with that the western christian world should have just gave up and acquiesced to Muslim invaders.

And would you consider Muslim retaking of palestine "self-defense"? It was originally theirs, after all. Retaking something no matter the case is not "self-defense" especially if it's several hundred years later.

Hardly... If you want to play that game. Palestine was Roman Christian territory after 313 AD (And before that it was still Roman territory) It was only 300 years later that the Muslims took it. So no, there is absolutely no way you can argue that Muslims had "first dibs" on the area. Other ethnic/religious groups sure, but not Muslims.

And who had it before the Romans, and who had it before them, and then who had it before that group and who before that? We can keep going back and back. It's an infinite regression. If everybody tried to retake land their ancestors lived on the world would fall into utter chaos. Point being simply because your ethnic or religious group lived somewhere does not automatically give you rites to those lands, it's barbarism. We are civilized people and live by the rules of society, we cannot simply take whatever we want.

So because your initial point was shown to be incorrect you resort to irrelevant babble about pacifism without making any attempt to understand what caused the reactions European Christians had during the Crusades 900 year ago. I'm sorry but your user text does not fit you.

And what exactly was my initial point? That retaliation is not self-defense? I'm curious as to how that was "shown to be incorrect". I'm waiting....

Also curious to how my post was irrelevant, on the contrary it is very relevant, If we do not have rights to a land then defending it is not "self-defense". And no matter what the crusaders reasons were it doesn't change the fact that what they did was not self-defense, you are committing the special pleading fallacy with that argument. But perhaps you are willing to overlook the atrocities committed by the crusaders because they are "on your side". I know you know I was right as soon as you read my previous post which is why you refuse to acknowledge the points I made.

Perhaps you should read it again...

I'll quote it for you to ease the difficult process. If you actually have questions or comments about what I have said then please post them. Your random tangent statements are useless and fail.

The Christian world was perceived as coming to an end, there was a huge amount of milleniumism fervor going on about. With their religion, nations and entire existence legitimately threatened by Muslims on both side how is not protecting their boarders and taking back land that was taken from them not self-defense? You seem to with that the western christian world should have just gave up and acquiesced to Muslim invaders.

Who says you don't have rights to land? You are trying to adapt a philosophy that is antithetical to that of any existing in the Western World c.1000ad. You can't judge the actions of the Crusaders (or the Muslims for that matter) with any level of academic or intellectual honestly by trying to apply a completely irrelevant and non existent philosophy to them.

What points did you make? You made none relevant to this. If you think you have feel free to repost them one by one and I will respond to each of them. I'm sorry but you have failed to produce an comment of substance regarding this topic. You have made plenty of bad assumptions and mistakes in your amateur attempts at history.

Don't bother replying if you can't answer a simple yes or no question.

What quote?

The only real Muslim threat to Christendom was the Moorish invasion of Spain, which was ended rather dramatically, the only succesful muslim force after that was Saladin's army which was raised in defense of the Muslim lands, but of course these Muslim warriors were no less brutal than their European cousins (the crusaders). After this there were 8 or 9 crusades (depending if you include the children's crusade), these wars were brutal and women and children were often massacred in the process. These wars were being pushed into places that were never really christian to begin with (Egypt for example). Of course the church tried to justify it as self defense but if this is what you call self-defense then I'd hate to see what you consider aggression.

Do you understand that idea? Yes or No?

However, as Jerusalem grew as a pilgrimage site, intolerance towards Jews and Christians increased. By the tenth century Jews were prohibited from entering the Temple Mount. Soon after, Muslim intolerance of Jews and Christians would reach its peak when in 1009 when all Jewish and Christian places of worship in Jerusalem, including the Holy Sepulcher, were ordered destroyed by Fatimid Caliph Hakim;[/SIZE] which on its own prompted a bout of anti-Jewish violence in parts of France.# [SIZE="5"]The near total destruction of the Holy Sepulcher disrupted an increasing flow of pilgrims and probably increased anxiety over the millennium and the believed approach of the Last Days; as it would be in Jerusalem that the final acts would happen; the appearance of the Anti-Christ, return of the Savior, splitting of the tomb and General Resurrection. # [/SIZE]

Now if you care to actually respond to the above explanation of the historical events and perception that Europe had of their world and what Muslims were doing to it, feel free to post.

So then i should judge them by their morals when their morals are so obviously tainted? Certainly not. I judge them by the merit of their actions. Whether or not the crusaders understood ethics makes them no more or less ethical.

I tire of repeating myself. My point two posts back was that simply because our ancestors lived somewhere does not give us an inherent right to uplift the people who currently live there. It would be the equivalent of modern Mexicans trying to retake the American southwest.

I know you wont read the essay excerpt posted below but you should and it would do you great good in understanding the causes of the First Crusade.

As you can see, European Christiandom thought its world was ending, its very existence, the lives, everything that generations of people had known was believed on the brink of being lost forever, all due to the encroachment of Muslim powers into long held Christian lands.

Another tangent you bring up irrelevant to this topic that you and I are on (the origin of the crusades), is what the Crusades turned into (it is important that what Pope Urban II started was not what the Crusades became), yes they were horrible, lots of bad things happened due to a multitude of reasons. Its moot point that was never part of any part of my posts.

The sad part is, is that you are still applying modern ethics and morality to a world in which you have no understanding of. No historian, no person wanting to understand the past does this. Its flawed and juvenile thinking.

Since you're just spouting modern philosophical happy talk, what you wish to judge the crusaders, though not the Muslims by is intellectual and academic garbage.

Rubbish! Absolute Garbage! I don't care how society was at the time, what is wrong today was wrong yesterday and was wrong a hundred years ago and was wrong a thousand years ago. Morality does not flex, it does not bend to our thoughts and deeds. Morality does not conform to society, society must conform to morality. You are about to fall into the paradox of the moral relativist.

Actually I did read it, but there was not a single point that I have not already contended. But it's nice to see you piggyback on the work of others.

And at what point was Egypt a "christian land"?

Again here you go again trying to pass off every counter-argument as irrelevant. So how exactly is the murdering of women and children "self-defense"?

I see. If by "learn" you mean "agree with you", then yes. But don't be so pompous and self-centered as to think that you have some knowledge that I just won't accept, such a view is very base and juvenile, one you'd do well to discard.

Again, the "they thought it was okay at the time" argument isn't going to gain any ground.

Morality is suddenly modern philosophical happy talk? If that is what you think then I can understand why you'd think what the crusaders did was is any way acceptable.

I do not care for your condescending attitude.

Since you are unwilling to accept facts, one is only left with few other options to consider.

I see, well, if that's the direction you want to go with this discussion then It will be a long and difficult road. Your moral relativism is intellectually bankrupt.

There is no merit with such a position and the ensuing paradox is inescapable. Society does not define morality, no person or group defines it. If that was true would it be moral to murder you and your family if society deemed it acceptable? If society decided it was okay to kill all differing ethnic groups, would it then be okay. If I decided it was okay to hurt you then you could have no objections.

Society does not define morality, no person or group defines it.

If I decided it was okay to hurt you then you could have no objections.

If that was true would it be moral to murder you and your family if society deemed it acceptable? If society decided it was okay to kill all differing ethnic groups, would it then be okay.

In your view morality is entirely arbitrary and without base, shifting as the wind, absolutely anything society thought was good must be acceptable, but that is not the case is it? You must at least have a rudimentary understanding of ethics to know the base and foundation of it. You must understand why morality exists to understand what it is and why. We know morality does to some degree have a common foundation and purpose by simply examining different cultures. Different cultures have different ideas of morality but it is the similarities that tells us the basis of morality. Something you don't seem to comprehend.

We don't know who's it was first which is why we can't claim rights to a land simply because of where our ancestors lived.

We know who owns a land based on who lives there CURRENTLY.

Nice try. :p

I see how you try to ignore the part that contradicts your argument. This is about the crusades, you know, all of them. To say the crusades were for self-defense is different than saying the first crusade was in self-defense.

Um.....No!

It wasn't about the "start" of the crusades, it was about the crusades as a whole, if I meant the start I would've said the start. Quit trying to change the argument when you know you're wrong.

Because What a religion says is automatically true, right? It doesn't matter if they believed there were no innocents, it matters that they killed innocent people, which is once again, not self-defense.

Of course.

*rolls eyes*

Don't be so obtuse, you know this isn't about "study", this is about how one defines self-defense. And I believe I've made a compelling case of why the crusades do not constitute self-defense.

You mean not murdering women and children, didn't exist in 1000ad? Or more accurately 1000 CE (common era).

And yet I put up with yours.

Hmph.....

No? How did slavery become immoral?

It was an acceptable practice for all of the western world for 3000+ years.

No, here you fail. If SOCIETY DECIDED

Morality is arbitrary. It always has been and it always will be. Make a single claim that supports it being otherwise. I beg you.

So how do we claim rights to land? Does that mean I can just punch you in the mouth and take your house?

So when the Muslims invaded the land currently owned by Christian nations, those nations had no right to defend themselves? Or try to take that land back? You are a typing contradiction here. What do you mean and how does that relate to the causes/justification of the Crusades?

I take it you forgot to respond to this or you just wished it would go away?

But, if you go read the first post in the thread, which I question if you actually did. The poster is referencing only the 1st crusade.

http://www.conflictingviews.com/society/history/crusades-3362-3.html#post63456

You are, even when presented in front of you, you just ignore them.

And who had it before the Romans, and who had it before them, and then who had it before that group and who before that? .....

God.

There was once a scientist who learned how to animate chemicals and dust into slime. He thought he was clever and wanted to prove he was just as capable as God. He told God watch me make life. God said, go ahead. The scientist said first I take some dust. God said, Stop, get your own dust.

I can see a civil conversation with you is out of the question, perhaps if you weren't so emotionally attached to this issue you could discuss this with something other than crude remarks and stubborn belligerence.

The paradox is quite simply really, so simply i'm sure even you with you zealous bigotry could understand it:

A moral relativist believes whatever society thinks is right is right, so if that same society oppress and condemns the existence of that very same moral-relativist, he can have no objections.

Slavery didn't BECOME immoral, it always was immoral.

Simply because it was acceptable doesn't make it morally correct.

Morality didn't change, society changed.

Okay, if SOCIETY decided, you could say nothing of it. Why would you stop society from doing a moral act, by doing so you would become immoral according to your own reasoning.

Well at least you're honest. Willing to die for absolutely nothing simply because the times call for it. Honest, but you have no principals, and have no understanding of morality. Might doesn't make right. If it did then Hitler must've been a pretty okay guy, right?

AN example of CULTURE changing.

Okay, I'll give you a piece of information so you are not quite so clueless. There is a reason why isolated cultures share common ideas of morality, there is a reason why murder of innocents is condemned in virtually every culture, why stealing is considered wrong, if morality was arbitrary there would be no common ground, but there is.

Different cultures share similar but varied ideas of morality

because they share a common foundation of morality, a foundation they themselves didn't understand very well, yet they acted and thought upon these principals.

I'll give you a hint. Morality is an evolved trait. Morality gives humans an advantage. Morality exists because the existence of society depends on it. Morality is a system of thought that preserves society, this is why different cultures share commonalities, because all cultures want to survive and thus all cultures use morality based on the same thing: Survival.

There is no contradiction

ideas of morality =/= morality

The differences is that some actions may be beneficial in some circumstances and not others, this is what accounts for the variability.

You could try.

You are confused here. Simply because morality is not dependent on ideas of society does not mean morality never coincides. Remember morality is survival, and taking my home is a matter of survival so I am justified in defending it from you or anyone else. In the rare case that your survival depends upon taking my home, you would not be wrong in doing whats necessary to survive, but neither would I.

What the crusaders did far exceeded mere self-defense, they we not just defending themselves they were taking lands that they had no right to own in the first place. .

Oh, so now you accuse me of lying? You become very antagonistic don't you? I suppose I am questioning something that you hold very dear to you, that is expected. And yes, I have talked about about Muslim taking of lands and I have talked about culture, and no I did not talk specifically about millennialism nor is it necessary to the conversation.

Again the question was whether the Crusades were self-defense. I don't really care if you think going into Egypt was "justified" it still is not "self-defense" which is what this topic is actually about.

And I care why? They may have believed they were doing the right thing, but in reality they were not. And I don't give a damn about your moral-relativist bull****.

And How does one type loudly?

I am not talking to the poster am I?

I've not copy and pasted anything in our discussion.

Irrelevant. Original course or not, it still doesn't constitute self-defense.

So I should just accept it because they believed it? Surely you jest. Such an intellectually incompetent statement does not even deserved to be on an internet forum.

Or so you insist.

I've made a negative statement, i'm merely criticizing your position, in this case the burden of proof lies on you to show that it was self-defense and so far the only thing you've been able to muster is "they believed this and that" nonsense. Your whole argument relies on an unfounded assumption. A bad one at that. That because they believed it was okay then it is.

again the "they believed this..." argument isn't going to get you anywhere.

I wasn't aware you ever started.

Yes moral relativism is the only morality supported in the entire human existence.

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Sure it does! Unless you are able to prove that some other standard should be used.

Accept there is common ground among thieves, among tyrannical dictators, among the religious. Those commonalities exist because of moral evolution, because society generally works better that way. But every moral standard makes the exception to one of those at some point in time.

Oh ****!!! You just defined changing morality!!! Morality evolved? What evolution? Evolution is change over time correct.

I love that you brought up the need to survive. Because that is what changes morality. That is what makes the killing of an innocent moral, because it allowed of the survival of a group, that is what makes stealing ok, because it makes for the survival of a person.

Which means that morality is variable and dependent on circumstance. Morality is either 100% universal in every respect or it has the ability to differ between time and culture. Any variability at all dismisses the idea that there is any sort of absolutism in morality.

So you would defend your property. But you yourself just said that the Christian nations had no right to defend their own existence from the Muslims. Hypocrisy much?