VICTORY! Supreme Court Rejects School Race Plans

So, Michael... The Crusades were GOOD?

squinney wrote:

So, Michael... The Crusades were GOOD?

Well, except for that time they killed and ate their Muslim captives . . . and, uhm, a couple of other times--but we don't need to go into details.

So you think the crusaders were Jews? Your views are even goofier than i had imagined, and that's saying a lot.

Take it easy on Michael. Don't battle someone who is defenseless.

Setanta wrote:

So you think the crusaders were Jews? Your views are even goofier than i had imagined, and that's saying a lot.

Looks like he thinks Muslims aren't Kosher. How you figured the rest of that abstracted statement is mind boggling.

Crusaders are still referred as "cannibals" in many Middle Eastern languages and even centuries later their image as fanatical cannibals was alive in Arabic literature. Many authors suggest that the crusaders' behaviour was not really born of their hunger but fanatical belief that the Muslims were even lower than the animals. Amin Maalouf in his book The Crusades Through Arab Eyes points out the most crucial line for such belief among the Muslims: "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!" by Albert of Aix.