Thank God for the Crusades

[total relism]

Yeah, I know the propaganda of Christian fundamentalists, but I think that justifying your war, by something happened 400 years ago is dishonest and a very stupid excuse.

Cheers,
Crandar.

I would agree with i think if that were the case. However as i am sure your aware and ignoring, Islam was expanding and the crimes associated for 400 years up to the present day the crusades was called [and after]. To try and say the crusade was called for one event that happened 400 years before would be dishonest, and so very stupid. But I am all to aware of the atheistic and liberal propaganda.

[Crandar]

I would agree with i think if that were the case. However as i am sure your aware and ignoring, Islam was expanding and the crimes associated for 400 years up to the present day the crusades was called [and after]. To try and say the crusade was called for one event that happened 400 years before would be dishonest, and so very stupid. But I am all to aware of the atheistic and liberal propaganda.

I'm not aware, so please tell me were were the Caliphate of Egypt and Islam attacking W. European Christians generally and the domains of Godfrid specifically.

[total relism]

I'm not aware, so please tell me were were the Caliphate of Egypt and Islam attacking W. European Christians generally and the domains of Godfrid specifically.

"that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.”
President Ronald Reagan - June 6, 1984 POINTE DU HOC THE 40TH ANNIVERSAY OF THE NORMANDY INVASION, D-DAY


Ok so I can see from your modern perspective why you would not see Islam a threat to countries yet attacked by Islam, however i think the historical perspective of the crusading time period would change that for you. So Islam [historic Islam] was on a mission from the Koran to conquer the world and bring all people under Islamic rule. They had expanded and taken around 2/3 of the christian world territory wise forcing conversions, murdering and harassing christian pilgrims to the holy lands. They continued to expand into Europe in places like spain, Italy and In 1071 a few years before any pope called for crusade, Islamic Turks captured the byzantine Emperor and destroyed there army. The new Emperor called other christian nations for help. With Constantinople under threat and with the emperor recently killed and his army destroyed by invading Muslims. The west believed it would unlock all of Europe to further Islamic expansion, so the west responded. Byzantine was the strongest of the christian nations and it was about to fall. So while many western nations had not been directly attacked, they all would have fallen had they not united and responded when they did. They were fighting as a defensive action.

The crusades also set out to take back lost christian lands especially the holy lands so pilgrims could travel there without being killed or have their money stolen by Muslims.

"The Crusades were also a response to the severe persecution of indigenous Christians living in the occupied territories, whose lives were severely restricted and who suffered constant pressure to convert to Islam Christian pilgrims were also subjected to harassment and violence, which demanded a defensive response from Christendom. The Seljuks, who were known for their brutality, threatened pilgrims to the holy sites in Palestine. As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days' march from Jerusalem."
Steve Weidenkopf The Glory of the Crusades

[Crandar]

Except that Seljuks about to conquer Europe is only your opinion, unsupported by facts and common sense.
And the Caliphate of Egypt remains absent from your narrative, unless we apply collective judgment, because both Seljuks and Fatimids were Muslims (although they fought each other), while Islam is still irrelevant to the Byzantine crushing defeat at Manzikert or the Turkic expansion.

[total relism]

Except that Seljuks about to conquer Europe is only your opinion, unsupported by facts and common sense.
And the Caliphate of Egypt remains absent from your narrative, unless we apply collective judgment, because both Seljuks and Fatimids were Muslims (although they fought each other), while Islam is still irrelevant to the Byzantine crushing defeat at Manzikert or the Turkic expansion.

Interesting, with what logic and facts would you use to claim Islam was not going to expand into further christian territory like they had the 400 years previous. How is Islamic ideology irrelevant to Muslim expansion in your opinion.

while i agree islam had nothing to do with the battle that put the byzantine under, it did have everything to do with why islam was expansionist and why the west reacted.


Maybe a modern analogy might work. Republicans go around killing all the democrats and tacking control of state governments in 2/3 of the states. California is in trouble and is almost about to go under. After 400 years of this process democrats react to them being killed and in defense, look to protect the rest of California from this fate and even restore some democrats in some of the states they were kicked out of, or murdered, or worse, forced to join the republican party. Would that be aggressive or reactive in your mind.