|
On November 25 2012 10:17 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 09:54 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 09:16 Mikau wrote:On November 25 2012 03:19 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written. The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith. Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD? Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion". It's funny, because the Bible actually tells people a lot of the same things. And just like not every Christian takes everything the Bible says literally, there are plenty of Muslims who don't take the Quran literally. Islam isn't inherently evil, just like Chrstianity isn't. Maybe we should actually give them a chance, instead of getting up in arms before we even know what's going to happen. Just like we had to give Christianity a chance to not be a bunch of gay-killing, child-molesting, crusading bunch of people. Actually, the bible doesn't say the same things the Qu'ran does, the Bible tells you that at x point in time people x justly killed people y because z, it does not tell you to actively search out and kill Jews and people that have converted, most of the time the Bible is telling it's history, whereas most of the time the Qu'ran is giving commands, the sheer amount of which combined with the ruthless time, leads to some of the more controversial rules existing. Seriously, give me a Bible quote where God gives all Christians the order to kill anyone in specific, it doesn't even give any punishments that should be given when sins are committed because it believes any judgement will be done post mortem, in stark contrast to the Sharia. Islam isn't inherently evil, to be honest evil is a broken concept, all actions can be just in a specific light, Nazi's or the Devil are evil, mostly because they are ethereal concepts devoid of any realism or humanity, given enough time to empathize and understand, noone but the most hardcore of sociopaths can be considered evil, let alone an entire religion. In it's initial time frame Islam did a lot of good, but at this point it's more severe rules that only make sense in historical context are starting to hurt it's own people, making a sick form of blood sport out of suicide bombings, and all the other ridiculous rules completely incompatible with any form of modern culture, usually not even those of Muslim countries themselves. At some point those differences are going to break, forcing Muslims to either "update" the Qu'ran, completely secularize or live by it's teachings to the death, mind you the last possibility is extremely unlikely, but considering an entire country can band up against the Jews, Armenians or Kurds, it's not hard to imagine the world banding together if a specific a single religion keeps causing trouble, especially if we keep steering towards one world government as quickly as we are now. Please don't try to use the Crusades as one liner, it's a rather complicated subject, during that time Christian countries lacked any form of military cohesion, whereas most of the Islamic world was unified and rapidly conquering Christian lands and terrorizing pilgrims, eventually culminating in Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which until that point had been the holiest site for Christians and especially pilgrims. After that the pope, in response to pleading from the pilgrims and in an attempt to gain more power called for the first Crusade, the rest of the story I really hope you know. If you want to blame anyone for the Crusades, blame the Pope for wanting more power and Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah for launching a literal terror campaign on Christians in his lands, unlike in the Qu'ran, nowhere in the Bible does it tell people to Crusade, the word doesn't even appear in it, unlike Jihad and Ghazi. You seem to have misunderstood my point when I brought up the crusades. I wasn't bringing up the crusades (or the child molesting, or the gay killing) to point fingers at Christianity, telling you how bad it is. I was using that as a point to show that in the past, 'we' as Christians (even though I myself am atheist) did bad things but we evolved out of it. A lot of the middle eastern countries and the Islamic rules they live by are really similar to us a few hundred years ago. I'm just saying that instead of condemning it, we should give them a chance to evolve out of it, just like we did. Also. The Old Testament is some of the most violent pieces of literature I ever read. People were being smitten for being anything other than the perfect Christian left right and center. Maybe there are no direct commands of that nature in there (honestly it's been very long since I read it), but the message it puts across is really quite similar to that in the Quran in a lot of ways.
I hate to be repeating you, but you seem to have misunderstood MY point, you use the Crusades as something wrong the Christians did, now, as with all conflict involving bloodshed, the entire situation is definitely wrong, but saying that this was the Christians fault is just shortsighted and showing you need to read up on some history. Islamic apologists will usually whine about the Crusades being this horrible thing the Christians did while clearly lacking any historical understanding of the situation and assuming their audience has so as well, quite frankly, if I hadn't specifically researched I wouldn't have known either. If you don't know how this is not just simply a Christian crime, read my previous post, much like any real conflict, there is far more nuance then dumb one liners try to make it out to be, or just read the Wiki page on the first Crusade.
I will agree that the Old Testament has some nasty things happening, mass murder is just a common occurence like in the other Abrahamic faiths, but the context is what makes the difference between a direct command that should be followed by all devout followers or just an order to specific (usually semi-)historic figures because of some rediculous divine whim.
At any rate, another thing you do by saying that Muslims doing horrible things in the name of their god is ok because we (mind you, I'm atheist, but my culture is heavily Christian influenced) did horrible things for religion in the medieval era is essentially saying that these violent Muslim societies are culturally retarded and should be treated special because they're still stuck on where we where 600 years ago
I'm not sure "dispel" is the correct wording, but "ignorant" would fit. Islamic countries treat the Quran like a Constitution, and give it the same veneration (except it doesn't change). Yes, there are some things that we in the West find offensive in it, but it's not this barbaric thing he makes it out to be. There are also conflicting views on a number of the more restrictive portions of it.
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't a terrorist organization. It's just a religiously motivated political movement.
Please tell me what I stated that was "Ignorant"? People tend to forget after Mubarak was deposed but the MB was considered heavily involved in terrorist organizations and for long times as a terrorist organization themselves, you remember the last time terrorist groups took control of a country and it didn't turn into a massive Sharia based clusterfuck? The statements I made about the Qu'ran are factually correct, I will provide quotes and links if you're incapable of finding out these things yourself. If you consider killing Jews, people that renounce their religion and supporting suicide bombers barbaric, well, turns out it really is the barbaric thing I make it out to be.
If you still think the Muslim Brotherhood are pretty moderate and legit because their president hasn't said incredibly racist things yet, have a nice little quote from their party leader:
The Brotherhood's supreme leader Mohammed Badie called on Muslims worldwide this week to defend Jerusalem, saying "Zionists only know the way of force." He said that Jews were spreading "corruption," had slaughtered Muslims and desecrated holy sites." This is one and a half month ago by the way, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/13/jewish-group-condemns-egypt-muslim-brotherhood-over-anti-semitic-remarks/ , yes, I know, Fox, but I'm not intending to sift through 15 pages of googling 'muslim brotherhood jews'.
I'll give you that it is really just a religiously motivated political movement, which should give you some idea of how well Islam and politics mix.
Just for shits and giggles just had a look at the MB's page on wiki, their old and current credo: "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.", read the entire thing if you're still convinced of their peacefulness.
|
On November 25 2012 16:12 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:17 Mikau wrote:On November 25 2012 09:54 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 09:16 Mikau wrote:On November 25 2012 03:19 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written. The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith. Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD? Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion". It's funny, because the Bible actually tells people a lot of the same things. And just like not every Christian takes everything the Bible says literally, there are plenty of Muslims who don't take the Quran literally. Islam isn't inherently evil, just like Chrstianity isn't. Maybe we should actually give them a chance, instead of getting up in arms before we even know what's going to happen. Just like we had to give Christianity a chance to not be a bunch of gay-killing, child-molesting, crusading bunch of people. Actually, the bible doesn't say the same things the Qu'ran does, the Bible tells you that at x point in time people x justly killed people y because z, it does not tell you to actively search out and kill Jews and people that have converted, most of the time the Bible is telling it's history, whereas most of the time the Qu'ran is giving commands, the sheer amount of which combined with the ruthless time, leads to some of the more controversial rules existing. Seriously, give me a Bible quote where God gives all Christians the order to kill anyone in specific, it doesn't even give any punishments that should be given when sins are committed because it believes any judgement will be done post mortem, in stark contrast to the Sharia. Islam isn't inherently evil, to be honest evil is a broken concept, all actions can be just in a specific light, Nazi's or the Devil are evil, mostly because they are ethereal concepts devoid of any realism or humanity, given enough time to empathize and understand, noone but the most hardcore of sociopaths can be considered evil, let alone an entire religion. In it's initial time frame Islam did a lot of good, but at this point it's more severe rules that only make sense in historical context are starting to hurt it's own people, making a sick form of blood sport out of suicide bombings, and all the other ridiculous rules completely incompatible with any form of modern culture, usually not even those of Muslim countries themselves. At some point those differences are going to break, forcing Muslims to either "update" the Qu'ran, completely secularize or live by it's teachings to the death, mind you the last possibility is extremely unlikely, but considering an entire country can band up against the Jews, Armenians or Kurds, it's not hard to imagine the world banding together if a specific a single religion keeps causing trouble, especially if we keep steering towards one world government as quickly as we are now. Please don't try to use the Crusades as one liner, it's a rather complicated subject, during that time Christian countries lacked any form of military cohesion, whereas most of the Islamic world was unified and rapidly conquering Christian lands and terrorizing pilgrims, eventually culminating in Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which until that point had been the holiest site for Christians and especially pilgrims. After that the pope, in response to pleading from the pilgrims and in an attempt to gain more power called for the first Crusade, the rest of the story I really hope you know. If you want to blame anyone for the Crusades, blame the Pope for wanting more power and Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah for launching a literal terror campaign on Christians in his lands, unlike in the Qu'ran, nowhere in the Bible does it tell people to Crusade, the word doesn't even appear in it, unlike Jihad and Ghazi. You seem to have misunderstood my point when I brought up the crusades. I wasn't bringing up the crusades (or the child molesting, or the gay killing) to point fingers at Christianity, telling you how bad it is. I was using that as a point to show that in the past, 'we' as Christians (even though I myself am atheist) did bad things but we evolved out of it. A lot of the middle eastern countries and the Islamic rules they live by are really similar to us a few hundred years ago. I'm just saying that instead of condemning it, we should give them a chance to evolve out of it, just like we did. Also. The Old Testament is some of the most violent pieces of literature I ever read. People were being smitten for being anything other than the perfect Christian left right and center. Maybe there are no direct commands of that nature in there (honestly it's been very long since I read it), but the message it puts across is really quite similar to that in the Quran in a lot of ways. I hate to be repeating you, but you seem to have misunderstood MY point, you use the Crusades as something wrong the Christians did, now, as with all conflict involving bloodshed, the entire situation is definitely wrong, but saying that this was the Christians fault is just shortsighted and showing you need to read up on some history.Islamic apologists will usually whine about the Crusades being this horrible thing the Christians did while clearly lacking any historical understanding of the situation and assuming their audience has so as well, quite frankly, if I hadn't specifically researched I wouldn't have known either. If you don't know how this is not just simply a Christian crime, read my previous post, much like any real conflict, there is far more nuance then dumb one liners try to make it out to be, or just read the Wiki page on the first Crusade. I will agree that the Old Testament has some nasty things happening, mass murder is just a common occurence like in the other Abrahamic faiths, but the context is what makes the difference between a direct command that should be followed by all devout followers or just an order to specific (usually semi-)historic figures because of some rediculous divine whim. At any rate, another thing you do by saying that Muslims doing horrible things in the name of their god is ok because we (mind you, I'm atheist, but my culture is heavily Christian influenced) did horrible things for religion in the medieval era is essentially saying that these violent Muslim societies are culturally retarded and should be treated special because they're still stuck on where we where 600 years ago Show nested quote +I'm not sure "dispel" is the correct wording, but "ignorant" would fit. Islamic countries treat the Quran like a Constitution, and give it the same veneration (except it doesn't change). Yes, there are some things that we in the West find offensive in it, but it's not this barbaric thing he makes it out to be. There are also conflicting views on a number of the more restrictive portions of it.
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't a terrorist organization. It's just a religiously motivated political movement. Please tell me what I stated that was "Ignorant"? People tend to forget after Mubarak was deposed but the MB was considered heavily involved in terrorist organizations and for long times as a terrorist organization themselves, you remember the last time terrorist groups took control of a country and it didn't turn into a massive Sharia based clusterfuck? The statements I made about the Qu'ran are factually correct, I will provide quotes and links if you're incapable of finding out these things yourself. If you consider killing Jews, people that renounce their religion and supporting suicide bombers barbaric, well, turns out it really is the barbaric thing I make it out to be. If you still think the Muslim Brotherhood are pretty moderate and legit because their president hasn't said incredibly racist things yet, have a nice little quote from their party leader: Show nested quote +The Brotherhood's supreme leader Mohammed Badie called on Muslims worldwide this week to defend Jerusalem, saying "Zionists only know the way of force." He said that Jews were spreading "corruption," had slaughtered Muslims and desecrated holy sites." This is one and a half month ago by the way, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/13/jewish-group-condemns-egypt-muslim-brotherhood-over-anti-semitic-remarks/ , yes, I know, Fox, but I'm not intending to sift through 15 pages of googling 'muslim brotherhood jews'. I'll give you that it is really just a religiously motivated political movement, which should give you some idea of how well Islam and politics mix. Just for shits and giggles just had a look at the MB's page on wiki, their old and current credo: "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.", read the entire thing if you're still convinced of their peacefulness. I am NOT saying it's purely the Christians fault, I am NOT pointing fingers and I am NOT calling it a purely Christian crime. I am referring to it as an atrocity in history. The nuances are really beside the point. I am just saying it happened, it involved Christians and/or Christianity and that 'we' (as a Christian dominated culture) evolved beyond it. That's it, nothing more. Dismissing what I said as a "dumb one liner" when you apparently didn't even read what I said is just an insult.
|
So, basically, they ousted their tyrannical despot of a leader and didn't REALLY have a plan for how to replace him. At least they're going it alone. Props to them on that.
|
On November 25 2012 20:07 dUTtrOACh wrote: So, basically, they ousted their tyrannical despot of a leader and didn't REALLY have a plan for how to replace him. At least they're going it alone. Props to them on that.
They do have, and its with sharia-laws. Finally egypt can party like its 1399.
|
The crusades were a logical reaction after century's of Islamic conquest and genocide. I always laugh when Muslims point the crusades out as a terrible thing.
|
....Not sure if I'm being called a Muslim or not...
|
On November 25 2012 22:33 Bahamut1337 wrote: The crusades were a logical reaction after century's of Islamic conquest and genocide. I always laugh when Muslims point the crusades out as a terrible thing.
Whenever Islam is brought up, there we can find Bahamut1337 attacking it and showing us how bad it is. Well thank you, but do you have any other purpose in life other than attacking other religions?
|
On November 25 2012 23:23 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 22:33 Bahamut1337 wrote: The crusades were a logical reaction after century's of Islamic conquest and genocide. I always laugh when Muslims point the crusades out as a terrible thing. Whenever Islam is brought up, there we can find Bahamut1337 attacking it and showing us how bad it is. Well thank you, but do you have any other purpose in life other than attacking other religions?
Easy on the personal attacks, broski, this isnt your drunk college fratparty.
|
On November 25 2012 23:23 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 22:33 Bahamut1337 wrote: The crusades were a logical reaction after century's of Islamic conquest and genocide. I always laugh when Muslims point the crusades out as a terrible thing. Whenever Islam is brought up, there we can find Bahamut1337 attacking it and showing us how bad it is. Well thank you, but do you have any other purpose in life other than attacking other religions?
How was that attacking a religion exactly? Simply pointing out how silly it is to point at the crusades and pretend they are motivated by evil Christians, they were a response to century's of Islamic Conquest which burned and destroyed half the Christian World. This is still going on mind you ( Nigeria Jihad, Sudan Jihad, etc etc)
|
On November 26 2012 03:53 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 23:23 Art.FeeL wrote:On November 25 2012 22:33 Bahamut1337 wrote: The crusades were a logical reaction after century's of Islamic conquest and genocide. I always laugh when Muslims point the crusades out as a terrible thing. Whenever Islam is brought up, there we can find Bahamut1337 attacking it and showing us how bad it is. Well thank you, but do you have any other purpose in life other than attacking other religions? How was that attacking a religion exactly? Simply pointing out how silly it is to point at the crusades and pretend they are motivated by evil Christians, they were a response to century's of Islamic Conquest which burned and destroyed half the Christian World. This is still going on mind you ( Nigeria Jihad, Sudan Jihad, etc etc) Thank God you're here to defend Christianity against accusations that are not even being made, while at the same time making a jab at the Islam. Are you sure you're not here to 'attack a religion'?
|
CAIRO, Nov 25 (Reuters) - The Egyptian presidency said on Sunday it was committed to engaging "all political forces" to reach common ground on the constitution and stressed the "temporary nature" of a decree expanding President Mohamed Mursi's powers.
"This declaration is deemed necessary in order to hold accountable those responsible for the corruption as well as other crimes during the previous regime and the transitional period," the presidency said in a statement.
Facing a storm of protest from judges and political opponents who accuse Mursi of turning into a new dictator, the presidency said the decree was "not meant to concentrate powers", but to devolve them. It aimed to avoid the politicisation of the judiciary, the statement said.
It also aimed to "abort any attempt" to dissolve either the body writing Egypt's constitution or the upper house of parliament, both of them dominated by Islamists allied to Mursi, the statement added.
"The presidency stresses its firm commitment to engage all political forces in the inclusive democratic dialogue to reach a common ground and bridge the gap in order to reach a national consensus on the constitution," it added.
Source
|
On November 26 2012 04:17 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 03:53 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 25 2012 23:23 Art.FeeL wrote:On November 25 2012 22:33 Bahamut1337 wrote: The crusades were a logical reaction after century's of Islamic conquest and genocide. I always laugh when Muslims point the crusades out as a terrible thing. Whenever Islam is brought up, there we can find Bahamut1337 attacking it and showing us how bad it is. Well thank you, but do you have any other purpose in life other than attacking other religions? How was that attacking a religion exactly? Simply pointing out how silly it is to point at the crusades and pretend they are motivated by evil Christians, they were a response to century's of Islamic Conquest which burned and destroyed half the Christian World. This is still going on mind you ( Nigeria Jihad, Sudan Jihad, etc etc) Thank God you're here to defend Christianity against accusations that are not even being made, while at the same time making a jab at the Islam. Are you sure you're not here to 'attack a religion'?
Reading 4 pages must be tough my dear friend.
|
On November 26 2012 03:53 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 23:23 Art.FeeL wrote:On November 25 2012 22:33 Bahamut1337 wrote: The crusades were a logical reaction after century's of Islamic conquest and genocide. I always laugh when Muslims point the crusades out as a terrible thing. Whenever Islam is brought up, there we can find Bahamut1337 attacking it and showing us how bad it is. Well thank you, but do you have any other purpose in life other than attacking other religions? How was that attacking a religion exactly? Simply pointing out how silly it is to point at the crusades and pretend they are motivated by evil Christians, they were a response to century's of Islamic Conquest which burned and destroyed half the Christian World. This is still going on mind you ( Nigeria Jihad, Sudan Jihad, etc etc) it's as if John Sobieski and Charles Martel never existed.
|
politics in that area of the world is very complicated
|
On November 27 2012 09:26 XX wrote: politics in that area of the world is very complicated
Not really, just different.
|
On November 26 2012 03:53 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 23:23 Art.FeeL wrote:On November 25 2012 22:33 Bahamut1337 wrote: The crusades were a logical reaction after century's of Islamic conquest and genocide. I always laugh when Muslims point the crusades out as a terrible thing. Whenever Islam is brought up, there we can find Bahamut1337 attacking it and showing us how bad it is. Well thank you, but do you have any other purpose in life other than attacking other religions? How was that attacking a religion exactly? Simply pointing out how silly it is to point at the crusades and pretend they are motivated by evil Christians, they were a response to century's of Islamic Conquest which burned and destroyed half the Christian World. This is still going on mind you ( Nigeria Jihad, Sudan Jihad, etc etc) Crusades were not motivated by what you claimed, they were political play by the pope and some nobles and were nothing else than meaningless wars that were waged just for the sake of it.
|
On November 25 2012 19:34 Mikau wrote:I am NOT saying it's purely the Christians fault, I am NOT pointing fingers and I am NOT calling it a purely Christian crime. I am referring to it as an atrocity in history. The nuances are really beside the point. I am just saying it happened, it involved Christians and/or Christianity and that 'we' (as a Christian dominated culture) evolved beyond it. That's it, nothing more. Dismissing what I said as a "dumb one liner" when you apparently didn't even read what I said is just an insult.
"purely Christian crime", "atrocity in history". You're digging yourself into a hole here.
What happens when you look at the crusades that weren't targeted at muslims? Many were directed at christians.
Maybe then you'll realise that all crusades had a political element, and reducing them to Christianity vs Islam is ignorant at best and downright dangerous at the worst. Also, you'll realise they were a handy way of raising an army and motivating people to fight.
Europe wasn't short of non-crusading related bloodshed and "atrocities" at the time either.
|
On November 27 2012 22:18 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 19:34 Mikau wrote:I am NOT saying it's purely the Christians fault, I am NOT pointing fingers and I am NOT calling it a purely Christian crime. I am referring to it as an atrocity in history. The nuances are really beside the point. I am just saying it happened, it involved Christians and/or Christianity and that 'we' (as a Christian dominated culture) evolved beyond it. That's it, nothing more. Dismissing what I said as a "dumb one liner" when you apparently didn't even read what I said is just an insult. "purely Christian crime", "atrocity in history". You're digging yourself into a hole here. What happens when you look at the crusades that weren't targeted at muslims? Many were directed at christians. Maybe then you'll realise that all crusades had a political element, and reducing them to Christianity vs Islam is ignorant at best and downright dangerous at the worst. Also, you'll realise they were a handy way of raising an army and motivating people to fight. Europe wasn't short of non-crusading related bloodshed and "atrocities" at the time either.
The 4th crusade is my favorite. It's almost comical in its undirected violence.
|
On November 27 2012 22:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 03:53 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 25 2012 23:23 Art.FeeL wrote:On November 25 2012 22:33 Bahamut1337 wrote: The crusades were a logical reaction after century's of Islamic conquest and genocide. I always laugh when Muslims point the crusades out as a terrible thing. Whenever Islam is brought up, there we can find Bahamut1337 attacking it and showing us how bad it is. Well thank you, but do you have any other purpose in life other than attacking other religions? How was that attacking a religion exactly? Simply pointing out how silly it is to point at the crusades and pretend they are motivated by evil Christians, they were a response to century's of Islamic Conquest which burned and destroyed half the Christian World. This is still going on mind you ( Nigeria Jihad, Sudan Jihad, etc etc) Crusades were not motivated by what you claimed, they were political play by the pope and some nobles and were nothing else than meaningless wars that were waged just for the sake of it.
The prime motivation for the First Crusade was to save the Christian Byzantine Empire that had been getting its ass kicked right out of Asia Minor and was almost at the point of no longer being an effective shield for the rest of Europe. By doing so the Pope hoped to raise his prestige and influence so much that he might be able to reconcile the Eastern and Western churches, with the Papacy in charge of course. So saving Christians was not some secondary goal. It was recognized that if the Byzantines fell, the Balkans and Eastern/Central Europe would be next. Which is exactly what happened once the Byzantine Empire did fall in 1453. And the Holy Roman Empire and France saw an opportunity to gain an advantage of prestige over the other and the rest of Europe by going, so they went.
The other Crusades were motivated by a desire to push back the Turks who were much nastier to non-Muslims than the Arabs ever were and were also knocking down the Christian kingdoms in the Levant created by the First Crusade.
And you have to consider that faith was near universal and much stronger generally among the faithful than it has been for centuries, when Crusaders said their motivation was to save the Holy Land from the heathen, they really meant it and that was a very important reason for them to go.
So no, they were not meaningless wars waged just for the sake of it. There has never been a meaningless war waged just for the sake of it, ever. They all have reasons behind them, that may be stupid or nonsense or malicious or greedy, but they're still there. You're just relying on your own bias to say that the Crusades were an entirely naked ploy of greed by the top kings / nobles of Western Europe and the Roman Catholic Church. Like all wars, lots of ingredients went into the pot of reasons.
|
|
|
|
|