|
On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization...
His statement, while an opinion, is not entirely invalid. It sounds more insulting than it is, but given that the start of the Crusades can be pointed to Muslim Expansion into Byzantium territory and their request for aid to the Pope and even centuries later in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries aggression can still be seen easily by the Ottoman Turk's movement into Eastern Europe. There are several modern historians (whose names escape me at the moment, but if I had to I could dig through old notes to find) who agree with SiroKO's interpretation of events.
I'm not one of them, but I understand its reasoning.
|
On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization...
Slapped by an arab when he was a kid, marine le pen <=> fascists, racist, xenophobic, Breivik, dumb, Africa's colonization.
You've got everything right, except for the Gaz Chambers and that nazi thing.
You can't be a serious anti-racist and forget to call nazi those whom you disagre with.
That neo-troll thing was good though, but was that really enough ?
|
I'm sorry but this seems far too biased and without any source or documentation. It appears that the OP is just trying to bring up a historical event and tie it in with our contemporary world today.
|
On May 14 2012 03:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization... His statement, while an opinion, is not entirely invalid. It sounds more insulting than it is, but given that the start of the Crusades can be pointed to Muslim Expansion into Byzantium territory and their request for aid to the Pope and even centuries later in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries aggression can still be seen easily by the Ottoman Turk's movement into Eastern Europe. There are several modern historians (whose names escape me at the moment, but if I had to I could dig through old notes to find) who agree with SiroKO's interpretation of events. I'm not one of them, but I understand its reasoning.
Please do post said papers, studies or historians, because Siroko's statements have been awefully vain until now.
How is it that the Crusade was led to the east, when more than half of the Iberian peninsula was occupied by Almoravids? How is it that, if the Crusade was supposed to repel the Turk invader, it didn't advance in Turkish territory and chose to fight the Fatimids instead?
How is it that armies supposed to fight infidels lost half of their troops attacking and sieging each other?
How is it that a simple request for troops - not a cry for help, the Ottoman empire was weakened and the Byzantine army simply lacked in numbers and experience - can be interpreted as a call to "christian resistance"?
How can we consider christian territories "united" when Alexis's predecessor had been excommunicated, and when other great threats were the Normans and various uprisings in Greece, all believers in Jesus' divine status?
|
On May 14 2012 04:42 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 03:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization... His statement, while an opinion, is not entirely invalid. It sounds more insulting than it is, but given that the start of the Crusades can be pointed to Muslim Expansion into Byzantium territory and their request for aid to the Pope and even centuries later in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries aggression can still be seen easily by the Ottoman Turk's movement into Eastern Europe. There are several modern historians (whose names escape me at the moment, but if I had to I could dig through old notes to find) who agree with SiroKO's interpretation of events. I'm not one of them, but I understand its reasoning. Please do post said papers, studies or historians, because Siroko's statements have been awefully vain until now. How is it that the Crusade was led to the east, when more than half of the Iberian peninsula was occupied by Almoravids? How is it that, if the Crusade was supposed to repel the Turk invader, it didn't advance in Turkish territory and chose to fight the Fatimids instead? How is it that armies supposed to fight infidels lost half of their troops attacking and sieging each other? How is it that a simple request for troops - not a cry for help, the Ottoman empire was weakened and the Byzantine army simply lacked in numbers and experience - can be interpreted as a call to "christian resistance"? How can we consider christian territories "united" when Alexis's predecessor had been excommunicated, and when other great threats were the Normans and various uprisings in Greece, all believers in Jesus' divine status?
I'll get around to other historians later when I have additional time for digging.
As to your 2nd question: The Europeans and the Arabs (I'm using the term extremely loosely here), had the same problem: Neither really understood the structure and organization of their enemy. The Europeans seldom understood the internal workings of their enemies, and likewise the arabs to the Europeans. The Crusades had many different goals, and I wont pretend to suggest that all of them were purely for defensive purposes. However, to many of the Crusaders at the time, that is how they viewed the events. What I mean is, both groups saw their enemies as 1 giant nation w/ unified rulers and a general consensus. This is far from the case. Also, while Spain wasn't a primary goal, it was still a goal to recapture and they made some attempts such as the Siege of Lisbon during the 2nd crusade.
The thing about Europeans attacking eachother is that you have to understand the political workings. Countries didn't really exist the way we think of them today. Many times, as the Crusading armies passed through, there were rivals or allies despite being the same "country." Also, supplies were limited and some local rulers either hated the crusaders are wanted to gouge them w/ expensive prices. When you're leading thousands of men who are hungry, it is hard to simply keep walking if a city closes its gates to you. Similarly, the groups that went on the Crusades were usually under the control of different leaders; sometimes they had different goals and ideas.
The call for help/aid is obviously tricky to talk about as no actual document is ever found that says exactly what was said in it. It is generally accepted that it was more of a request for troops, however, the Pope saw it as an opportunity to not only beat back the evil Muslims, but also in some vain attempt to convert the Byzantine back to Roman Catholicism. There was still no "unified" Catholicism, but they still considered those in the Byzantine as more like lost or confused distant relatives, whereas the Muslims were anything but. The Ottomans didn't exist at the time of the first Crusade (or maybe the "existed", but weren't really anything resembling a force).
You ask a lot of the same questions that I do as well, it should be noted. I don't agree with the theory that essentially it was a "defensive" war from the side of the Christians. Certainly there were some Crusading leaders who believed that the best defense was a good offense. Some saw it as a power grab. Some were extremely pious and believed it was God's will to go about on these Crusades, and even if it wasn't, getting out of purgatory seems like a pretty sweet deal.
|
On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization...
Well obviously Islam doesn't belong in Europe but neither does Christianity or any other religion.
Religion is a unfortunate relic of the past and we should leave it there.
|
On May 14 2012 01:31 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 20:54 gruff wrote:
It's hard enough to get history right in the last century. When we are talking about events happening thousand years ago we really should take a humble approach when trying to lecture others and it's not something that can be summized into one A4 page. Pretty much this. History is always far more complicated than you can explain in a forum or even in a textbook or history class. There are always severe simplifications and generalizations. The really scary thing to me is that people apparently are partisan for/against some group of people who lived thousands of years ago. I guess this is caused by all the "religion kills people" militant atheists. If you are partisan about history then you will never have a clear view of any historical event.
agreed, although it is equally cause by Christian apologists.
|
On May 14 2012 03:13 Node wrote:A couple of people have said that we should read books instead of Wikipedia, but then neglected to actually suggest any well-respected reading material. I'm actually interested in learning more about the topic, please help me out! All due respect to the people debating in this thread, but I would like to read up on some more respected sources. The Crusades have always been an interesting topic to me, but it's such a far-reaching span of time and place that I don't really know where to begin. So far I've seen these suggestions: The Crusade through Arab Eyes The Memoirs of Usama ibn Munqidh This Youtube videoAre there any other well-known somewhat entertaining historical books that encompass a good amount of the crusades?
Usama ibn Munqidh's memoirs are actually fascinating. I took a class on the Crusades in college and that was one of the books we were assigned. It's a really, really interesting Muslim perspective on the Crusades and the Latin inhabitants of the Holy Land. Plus if you're actually up on your comparative religions there are some absolutely hilarious anecdotes.
To add to the list there are also some excellent "Frankish" accounts of the crusades. The Gesta Francorum is probably the best account of the First Crusade. It's written by an anonymous knight on crusade (but historians think it was written by a knight in the service of Bohemond of Taranto) and is a great first-person narrative of the Crusade. There are also accounts of the first crusade written by, among others, Raymond d'Aguilers and Fulcher of Chartres. All of these accounts, of course, need to be taken with a grain of salt but are great glimpses into the way the contemporary European viewed the Crusades. There is also the Historia of Willam of Tyre which is an account of the Kingdom of Jerusalem from before its founding until his death sometime in the 1180's.
For the Fourth Crusade there is the Chronicle of Goffrey de Villehardouin, who was one of the leaders of the 4th crusade that sacked Constantinople. This one is especially interesting because there is a significant element of guild and attempted exoneration of Goffrey's writing trying to excuse the actions of the crusade.
There is also the Life of St. Louis by Jean de Joinville which covers the 7th and 8th Crusades. Jean was a close friend of Louis IX and was on the 7th crusade with him so it's a first person account of the 7th crusade. He didn't go on the 8th crusade so i'ts a second-hand account of that particular crusade.
For contemporary or semi-contemporary perspectives on the Crusade there is Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades, although now it is somewhat dated. For a more modern book that is a great overview of the Crusades I suggest God's War: A New History of the Crusades by Christopher Tyerman.
Hope this helps!
|
On May 14 2012 06:02 CarniX wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization... Well obviously Islam doesn't belong in Europe but neither does Christianity or any other religion. Religion is a unfortunate relic of the past and we should leave it there.
Bigotry against religion - the only bigotry acceptable in our tolerant world.
|
I prefer to learn history through authors who have extensively and throughly studied it, not through TL posters with no declared qualification whatsoever. So, OP, how about giving us some reading references you used, so we can find out for ourselves? What's the Hobsbawn/Rene Remond equivalent for that time period?
|
On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization...
Look at the Turks and their expansion to Balkans,
Mongol invasion to Russia,
Islamic expansion to India,
Yes, resistance.
And before you ask, Christians were expanding pretty much everywhere when they cold. That is how religion always worked.
What is bad about colonising Africa?
|
The Crusades weren't only because of Muslim expansionism; Sure that was a factor, the Muslims were expanding at this point in history, but also there were other factors.
The first crusade happened because the Muslim king had taken over Jerusalem and was persecuting Christians there. The first crusade was about taking back Jerusalem.
The second crusade was a fail where the Christians lost Jerusalem to the Muslims.
The third crusade was triggered by the execution of the previous king of Jerusalem.
So, while Muslims were expanding, I don't think it's accurate to say that expansionism was the only factor.
|
On May 14 2012 08:02 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization... Look at the Turks and their expansion to Balkans, Mongol invasion to Russia, Islamic expansion to India, Yes, resistance. And before you ask, Christians were expanding pretty much everywhere when they cold. That is how religion always worked. What is bad about colonising Africa?
This is the clearest example I can think of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
|
i want to see the opinion of orthodox people, about the Constantinople pillage in 1202.
|
On May 14 2012 07:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 06:02 CarniX wrote:On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization... Well obviously Islam doesn't belong in Europe but neither does Christianity or any other religion. Religion is a unfortunate relic of the past and we should leave it there. Bigotry against religion - the only bigotry acceptable in our tolerant world.
According to many Churches in the USA, bigotry against homosexuals is still pretty acceptable to them. I guess though that Christians don't fall under the category of being 'tolerant'.
|
wait so what this post actually means that it wasnt just chiristianitys fault and that it is the idea of religion to begin with that led to these atrocities?
|
On May 14 2012 09:25 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 08:02 naastyOne wrote:On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization... Look at the Turks and their expansion to Balkans, Mongol invasion to Russia, Islamic expansion to India, Yes, resistance. And before you ask, Christians were expanding pretty much everywhere when they cold. That is how religion always worked. What is bad about colonising Africa? This is the clearest example I can think of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
And?
Or should i reiterate, what what bad for Colonisers of Africa in colonisation of Africa.
As for the locals, Do you really think they wouldn`t colonise Europe, if given the chance? Lol.
|
On May 14 2012 17:41 CptCutter wrote:
wait so what this post actually means that it wasnt just chiristianitys fault and that it is the idea of religion to begin with that led to these atrocities?
Just look at ANY religion. Does any say that you should treat equally and respect persons, that doesn`t share your religious beliefs?
Nope, any religion implies that it is the only right way, and any other is wrong.
|
Why is this thread still in general? Why is it even opened? Seems to break a ton of TL rules. The OP has already been completely destroyed by intelligent people in the thread and has evaded their arguments for the whole topic... It just seems like dumb racism now, get it closed or moved.
|
On May 14 2012 06:02 CarniX wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 03:29 mahO wrote:On May 12 2012 21:44 SiroKO wrote:
But historically and globally speaking, whether they toke place in the Balkans (later Crusades in the XVth century) or the Middle-East, this was nothing more than a fight between Islamic expansionism and Christian resistance to it.
This shouldnt be allowed on TL, end of story. We're talking massacres of civilian populations, and this fucking idiot (who I already saw promoting fascists ideas on the 2012 French Presidential thread) claims that it is RESISTANCE. This is just some random racist nerd, who got slapped by an arab when he was 12 and never accepted it, ever since he's even trying to change fucking history to back up his senseless war against Islam and arabs. Seriously, dont you have something else to do in your shitty life than going on an international Starcraft forum promoting your xenophobic ideas? This guy even went on Breivik massacre's thread and tried to argue that his ideas were good, that Islam doesnt belong in Europe, and that it will eventually cause a civil war here? I mean, you guys ban troll alright, but this is just neo-trolling, let this dumb kid open threads like that he'll soon deny Africa's colonization... Well obviously Islam doesn't belong in Europe but neither does Christianity or any other religion. Religion is a unfortunate relic of the past and we should leave it there.
Denying reality wont get us anywhere. Even if I agree, religions wont go away, not for centuries at least, and going into a religion war is actually the real danger in Europe, and in the world in general, exactly what this xenophobic idiot OP is trying to cultivate, hate, differences. He's in denial of the fact that Europe is multi-cultural, there is nothing to do about it, and he also forgets that Europe actually needed immigrants from Africa to build our economy, and fill the "lesser jobs". But he, like that mother fucker Breivik, is trying to imply that we should kick Islam out of Europe, it wont happen, we built our societies on securalism, you dont get to change that just because you feel like "arabs" dont fit your ideal of a white supremacist Europe.
I could tolerate, even if it's hard to swallow, those ideas, if only these idiots, didnt go as far as changing history and giving excuses to horrible parts of it. Justifying crusades is just a very primal way of insulting a civilisation, a "race", a part of the world, it's pathetic and despicable.
Edit: And yes, this thread should be closed, the only goal of the OP is to create a mess and pushing racists to join him into a fascist fest
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
