@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:This is utter bullsh*t. Here's a fine example:
oralloy wrote:Setanta wrote:Tell me who in Europe was invaded by "Muslims" ( a vague enough term) during the period of the crusades. You're going to come up short there, because the Ottoman Turks didn't begin their assault on the empire until the end of the 13th century, almost a century after the fourth crusade.
The first event that ultimately triggered the Crusades was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009. This provoked widespread public outrage that fueled popular support for the Crusades.
Muslims then resumed attacking the Byzantine Empire starting with the Battle of Kapetron in 1048. This was followed by the First Battle of Manzikert in 1054, the Battle of Caesarea in 1067, and the Battle of Iconium in 1069.
After winning the Second Battle of Manzikert in 1071, Muslims flooded in and took over the heartland of the Byzantine Empire.
In 1095, the Byzantine Emperor appealed to the West for aid in driving those Muslims invaders out. This appeal provided the legal justification for the Crusades, and it directly kicked off the First Crusade.
You completely failed to answer the question of who in Europe was invaded by Muslims in the period of the crusades.
I did, however, give a factual list of the events that actually triggered the Crusades.
Setanta wrote:There's a good reason for that, and that's that there was no Muslim invasion of Europe in the period of the crusades.
Yes. My list did not include any fictitious or imaginary events.
Setanta wrote:You were wrong, and you could not accept or admit that, so you just ignored that and babbled about battles in Anatolia, which is not in Europe.
Hold on here. Just because I ignored imaginary invasions and battles, and instead focused on the invasions and battles that actually took place, how does that make me wrong about anything?
Setanta wrote:I still find it hilarious that you claim that an event in 1009 "fueled support" for the crusades, which began 86 years later. Generations then ran under 20 years--the events of 1009 took place in the lifetimes of the great grandfathers of the crusaders.
It's been centuries now, and I still want to resume the Crusades and drive all the Muslims out of Turkey and Syria.
Setanta wrote:Then there's this:
Setanta wrote:Well, just for a start, there's that crapola to the effect that Muslims stole the Roman empire from "us." What's this "us" sh*t, have you got a mouse in your pocket? The Arabs in the 7th century took the middle east from the Sassanid empire, who were Persians, and whose state religion was Zoroastrianism. So the Arabs overran the Sassanid empire--not the Roman empire. They took it away from Zoroastrians, not christians or Jews.
Your comment about the west bank is irrelevant, but it glaringly points to the purpose of your goofy polemic.
Yet you subsequently posted this:
oralloy wrote:"Us" refers to the West. As I am part of Western civilization, I am comfortable using terms like "we" or "us" when referring to the West.
The following countries represent land that was part of the Roman Empire and was stolen by Muslims: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Israel, Syria, Turkey. There are probably a couple more I could add, but that's close enough.
The West Bank also was part of the Roman Empire and was stolen by Muslims. It warrants mention apart from the other territories because the Romans did not legitimately own it either.
Libya and Tunisia were taken away from the Romans by the Vandals, not by Muslims (i had already alluded to the Vandals taking over Tunisia, which was, of course, the Roman province of Africa).
The Vandals were wrong to do that, but it was less of a blow because it remained in Western hands. The land was just passing from one Western power to another.
When Muslims seized the land, they were talking it out of the hands of the West altogether.
If the Vandals still retained the land today, I believe I'd probably argue that they should return it to the Roman Empire.
Setanta wrote:Israel, of course, did not exist at that time. Palestine and Syria were taken away from the Romans by the Sassanids. They were Persians, they came from the east, not the west; although somewhat religiously tolerant, they were not Jews nor Christians. The Arabs took the territory of the middle east and Persia from the Sassanids, not from the Romans. The West Bank is a 20th century concept--nevertheless, the Arabs took it from the Sassanids, not the Romans.
The Romans had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.
The Sassanids had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.
The Persians had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.
The Xians had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.
The Arabs had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.
The Muslims had no legitimate claim to the West Bank.
The Jews are the rightful owners of the West bank.
Setanta wrote:When presented with real facts, actual, verifiable facts, you ignore it.
What fact am I supposed to be ignoring?
Setanta wrote:That's because you're an anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist bigot and your purpose in posting here is to promote you anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist polemic.
I'm pro-Zionist definitely.
Maybe anti-Muslim but not really. I just want Muslims to stop murdering us and stealing our land.
Not really a bigot.
