Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

hey guys
i was thinking about the correlations between Iraq/Afganastan and the crusades and i think i thought of some details were it really shows how history repeats itself.
Now when you take the Crusades all you really hear about is how the christians just ran down arab countries in their "holy war" without provocation and committed terrible notrosities. This however is a misconception, they don't give you the whole picture.
Musilms had for hundreds of years prior invaded european counries such as Spain for instance. There were many christian lands that were invaded.
The "Crusades" was actually a retaliation of the many years of muslim invasion and seeked to put a foot hold on arab countries to stop it once and for all.
I belive the Catholism aspect of it and the religeos aspect was a "trumpet" to get everyone excited and was a "cause" that the European populace could get behind and support at the time. There is nothing like waving a flag and saying "i have a righteos cause" to get people motivated to take some action, and religeon can be a powerfull motivator.
So then you watch in history the muslims woke up the sleeping giant and they got hell to pay for their efforts. It was so memorable apparently what the europeans did to the muslims we all but forget it was in retaliation to muslim invasions.
Now to connect this to now.
Iraq and Afganastan may be closer to a "Crusade" than you think.
Think about 911, you could think of that as the initial attack that awakes the "sleeping giant". Now what happens, does Bush say he lets do a war for catholism?? NO the flag or cause of the day has changed from religeon to "Democracy and freedom" that is now the giuse he drapes over the war to justify it and rally people when in fact the real reason (just like the real reason during the crusades was not religeon in my opinion) the real reason is trying to strategicaly put a foot hold on muslims countries in order to try to reduce risk of attacks. Its paying back a flesh wound for a decapitation as well. Its not wise to instigate with certain countries or people (Americans are one of them)

In a nutshell its history repeating itself. You have the initial attack by muslims and then you soon watch the whole sky falling over muslim countries. And instead of mask the crusaders wore at that time wich was catholithism the new mask is that of "Democracy and Freedom for all"

Well anyway what do you guys think? Solid theory? Where are the holes? What are the strenghths? Input is always appreciated

It's a nice theory...

Bulls***, but nice nevertheless.


I don't want to go on about the real reasons for the Crusades
(hint: it wasn't religious, and definitely not geo-polotical as
you imply), nor go one about so-called arab/muslim attackes
against precious Olympian Europe (anyone who would compare
the destructive Crusader occupation of the Holy Land with the
Goldne Age of Caliphate Spain is ignorant of history).

None of these arguements would do any good with you as you
seem to have something against arabs or muslims anyway. So
you're stuck in your beliefs.

Oh, and if Bush's goal was to get a "foot-hold" in the arab
world to stop attacks, then he's a bigger moron than I
thought.

Besides, most people with even half a brain reliase that the
September 11 2001 attacks were not an act of agression but
an act of retaliation. Stop listening to Rush Blimpough and
Charled Krauthamer and get your own brain.

well , my friend, you are aware of the mass number of invasions over hundreds of years that Europeans suffered from Muslims being so informed in history. You also know that people seem to give this no mention when talking about the Crusades. There is a whole context here, its not just the evil white man with his crusade. It appears to me more of a retaliation and getting a foothold in the "holy land" that would stifle off some attacks.
Now please the reason I came up with this post was for peoples inputs, you are acting rather ignorant yourself stating that I have my mind made up and i am against muslims, when i specifically asked people to show any whole if they were there. If i was so close minded I woudn't ask for input so you were flawed in your judgement right off the bat.
And yes lest not just compare Spain to the crusades, maybe since your so knowledable in history you can tell me every european country that were invaded by muslims before the crusades.
This is not anti muslim, this is looking a history without any biased and asking what were the crusades really for, and is there a correlation between the crusades and what is happening now.
So give me your input Burger and i will read it with an open mind and I will research what you say afterwards to verify its accuracy.

Oh yea man taking over two countries and overthrowing them into your own form of government is such a moronic way to try to get a foot hold over other countries.

Even the most outragous Crusader propoganda never
mentioned coutering muslim attacks against Europe.

The Crusades began when the Byzantine Emperor asked
the Pope (as the most poweful figure in Catholic Europe)
for some knights to fight off Turkic invaders. The Pope,
seeing this as an opportunity to extend his authority into
Orthodox areas, went to the kings of wetsern Europe for
help, but rather than saying "Help me extend my powers
into the east", instead talked about muslims persecuting
Christians in the Holy Land (did happen, but not as often
as supposed, and not at that time).

The kings and knight responded, but not because of any
religious sentiments (they couldn't care less), but because
it was a chance to et their hands on the legendary wealth
of the "East". BUt they too used the religious reasons to
get the ignorant publis to go along with it.


Euopean nations invaded by muslims? How about Mid-East
and North African nations invaded by Rome? What about
nations of the world invaded by Spain and Portugal and
England and France?

The point is, you can't interpret the arab invasions of Spain
and Sicily, or the Ottoman invasions of south-east Europe
into a religious thing. Religion was used to inspire, as it did
the Spanish and Portugues invasions in the New World, but
the prime motivation was simply empire building.

The arabs were using their new-found martial skills to build
an empire for them-selves, just as the romans, macedonians,
persians and egyptians did before them, and just as the
spaniards, portugues, english, french, dutch, chinese, and
other did after them.

You can't isolate just the arab/muslim invasions as terrible
and injustified and inspired by religion, while other earlier
and later invaders are okay.

Why is it bad for mid-easterners to invade Euoprean lands,
but it is okay for romans to invade the mid-east? Is Europe
some sweet blonde virgin that's all perfect and wonderful
and shouldn't be touched or harmed?

If you're going to make the arguement that the Crusades
(and/or other later Europeaninvasions of arab/muslim lands)
are a retaliation of arab/muslim invasions of Europes, then
one can make the arguement that the arab/muslim invasion
of Europe was in retaliation of european (that is greeke and
roman) invasions of North Africa/South-West Asia.


Bush wasn't motivated by the silly geo-political motivations
that you propose, getting a "foot-hold". First off, such a
"foot-hold" will not only not stop any future attacks against
anerican interests, but will probably increase their likely-hood
in the long run.

And who sayd the US can maintain such a "foot-hold" anyway?

Besides, the US already had a "foot-hold" in the region with
all those damned Persian Gulf bases which were part of the
inspiration for Bin Laden's people to attack America.

We all know full well why all this is going down.

Iraq is ironically on a huge mess of oil, we need oil, **** em we need it we took it and thats ok with me.

I could care less about anyone other than the U.S, this war was needed to make sure we will stay the only real superpower for the next generation.

For you fools who get guilt tripped by other countries into hating yourself for being American (or white, whites are guilt tripped the same, whites were smarter and more powerful than other races, it was their fault for letting them enslave them, so **** em.) you're just plain weak.

Its all about power, if you need it you take it, and im glad we took it

Fine.

But if some guy breakss into your house, beats your a**, f****
your wife, and kidnaps your kids, then go crying to the police
like a little wimpy piece of s***. Afterall man, it's all about
power and using it, right?

But would you go out and kill every guy who looks at you funny on the off-chance one of them might do what you described?

Besides, long pig, aren't you black?

king...i can deal with that. if he kills me its my fault.
Bullit...yes i would.
Its kill or be killed, and i aint dying.

Yeah im black, i dont hate on whites for that, ida done the same thing they did.

My a**!

You'd run to the police like a baby!

Also, if you're black, what're you doing here? Most people
here are white, so what're you doing arguing with your
"superiors"?

Go back to the plantation to serve some massa, afterall,
according to you, your people got what they deserved when
they got enslaved, right?

is all I hafta say about that </forrestgump>

King Burger: show some respect, please...

I think the correct term is "satire."

ehhh actually I agree with King Burgers post, if you gonna be so f*ucking ignorant and post such crap you really had the plain text, like King Burger put it, coming.

Finti has a point.

Originally posted by Paola
King Burger: show some respect, please...


Sorry Paola.

I was just trying to show long pig that his arguement are not
only stupid, but they can easily be used against him, or any
other person for that matter.

We're not animals that go by who's stronger only.

whoa whoa there horsy

this debate got a little out of hand didnt it...sounds very much like a chicken and egg debate...

face facts historical events had very little to do with either the september 11th attacks or the invasions of iraq and afghanistan

islamic extremists work on the belief that anyone who participates in any kind of politics on any level...be it a dictatorship to a democracy to communism is from leaders to voters to people who accept dictorial rule...are all taking power that belongs only to allah...and this makes them targets of attacks

a warped way of thinking...the most extreme of which was a algerian group who believed that only the six members of the group were living their lives according to allah and that all other people on the planet should be killed

thats the mentallity that has born the groups such as al qaeda

as for the points above about the US interest in the oil of iraq

strangely enough...the french, russians and chinese were all opposed to the war in iraq and the toppling of saddams regime...is it coincidence that these three nations had been given bribes to fight to have sanctions imposed by the UN lifted against iraq...and is it coincidence that once those sanctions were lifted that those same three countries had signed deals with the hussein regime that they would get oil contracts and below market oil prices (illegal under international trade laws)

Originally posted by long pig
We all know full well why all this is going down.

Iraq is ironically on a huge mess of oil, we need oil, **** em we need it we took it and thats ok with me.

I could care less about anyone other than the U.S, this war was needed to make sure we will stay the only real superpower for the next generation.

For you fools who get guilt tripped by other countries into hating yourself for being American (or white, whites are guilt tripped the same, whites were smarter and more powerful than other races, it was their fault for letting them enslave them, so **** em.) you're just plain weak.

Its all about power, if you need it you take it, and im glad we took it

So, you operate from the "might makes right" point of view? People who come from that position are often willing to back away from that ideal when they encounter someone more powerful. Lets say you go to you mothers house one night and find her gutted on the kitchen floor. Because the killer was strong enough to kill her, does that make him right? Would you simply throw your hands in the air and say..."oh well, looks like mom met someone more powerful than she was...I guess I'm eating out tonight!" ? No, you'd be pissed. You'd want revenge

basically, all relegions and their followers{most of em} are full of crap, theyr all ignorant.

i being a former muslim and still livin in pakistan with my pure muslim family{who still think that im a muslim} can say that with certainty.

Then you can say that about islam

Originally posted by leonheartmm
basically, all relegions and their followers{most of em} are full of crap, theyr all ignorant.

This thread isn't about religion. It's about history.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i being a former muslim and still livin in pakistan with my pure muslim family{who still think that im a muslim} can say that with certainty.

Good for you.

But that doesn't give you any special insigth into anything.

And this thread is not just about history, but arab/mid-eastern
history, which you're not involved in anyway.

actually ive been to arabia, egypt, uae, dubai etc many times, and i still stand by my statement. all relegions{well most of them} and specially all fundamentalist close knit, relegious societes and states bring only misery to the world and to their own children{not to mention themselves}

edit

Never mind, I'll PM you leonheartmm.

King Burger> for making the most sense and displaying the most working braincells in here...

"Might makes right"?? HHahahahhahah. Okay so the big neo-nazi geek has the "right" to beat the living sh*t out of me?
Any country with nuclear capabilities has the "right" to use them?
I'd imagine "Might makes right" is a motto of the big, muscular but not too bright...

"Might makes right" is the motto of the not to bright...

wee
Rhyming is fun!

Originally posted by King Burger
The kings and knight responded, but not because of any
religious sentiments (they couldn't care less), but because
it was a chance to et their hands on the legendary wealth
of the "East". BUt they too used the religious reasons to
get the ignorant publis to go along with it.


Generalising a little bit aren't ya? The Lionheart stood to gain nothing by going on crusade, in fact, he raised taxes and while he was away his kingdom was in danger of being taken from him by John and fellow crusader, Philip II of France. Similarly, the French contingent during the Third Crusade kept urging Richard to lay siege to Jerusalem even though it was military suicide - while Richard had his eye on Egypt to prevent reinforcements coming to Saladin's aid.

Godfrey of Bouillon refused to be crowned King of Jerusalem out of piety, during the First Crusade.

They couldn't care less? I beg to differ.

Originally posted by King Burger
If you're going to make the arguement that the Crusades
(and/or other later Europeaninvasions of arab/muslim lands)
are a retaliation of arab/muslim invasions of Europes, then
one can make the arguement that the arab/muslim invasion
of Europe was in retaliation of european (that is greeke and
roman) invasions of North Africa/South-West Asia.


And why exactly are the Muslims retaliating for European incursions into Africa when Islam wasn't a religion until the 6th/7th century AD, long after Europeans settled in Africa (Punic Wars - Rome against Carthage in North Africa - happened before 200BC and Alexander's adventures to the East were a century before that).

Just so you know there were multiple reasons for the Crusades:
Gain access to Arabian goods
retake Holy Lands
Spread Christianity.

Unfourtunatley, many people who were recruited to go on the Crusades were former convicts who were told they could go free after the war. But when these convicts got to the Mid East they raped and pillaged, instead of trying to spread religion

No doubt, there were multiple reasons that people went on the crusades - some went for adventure, some for religious reasons, some for financial gain or land, some went to retake the holy city and some just wanted to get away from the bad living conditions in Europe. It would be naive to think that ALL crusaders who went to the middle east went for ONE reason.

As the post above this one mentioned, there were also convicts who were released to serve as muscle in the crusades, to pay for their crimes or forgiveness of sins - the church wrongly thought that these prisoners would behave as professional soldiers. And just so you know, when an invading army took a city by storm, rape and pillaging were the norm during those times - both Christians and Muslims knew this was a rule of war.

Actually Saladin especially did not allow his troops to do anything like that, i'm not saying it didn't happen. But Saladin had a lot of respect for the enemy soldiers, not the rulers but the soldiers because they were willing to die for their believes. Saladin held many prisoners but all were treated in a good manner, when the Crusade was over all of them were released. Saladin like it or not was one of the most civilised generals in the entire history...

Now to go back to the topic...

The crusades and iraq being related?

That is indeed bullshit, they weren't... 9/11 was no retaliation for the crusades, the crusades weren't retaliations for Muslim attacks in Europe and those weren't retaliations for Roman or Greek attacks into their lands. They were all just wars fought for reasons that have absolutly nothing to do with each other except for perhaps the fool here and there that wanted to mimic a great general of old. But besides that the wars hardly had anything to do with each other.

You don't see England attacking the US again because of a war that happened many many years ago, you don't see Holland and Spain going at it again just because they fought a war years earlier, France and England don't do it... Germany and Denmark. Seriously history is an important factor in our live and yes the Punic wars still affect us today, but that doesn't mean that every war that hapeneds now a days hapeneds because some country wants revenge on some country for not doing something there that they should have done.

Originally posted by moviejunkie23
hey guys
i was thinking about the correlations between Iraq/Afganastan and the crusades and i think i thought of some details were it really shows how history repeats itself.
Now when you take the Crusades all you really hear about is how the christians just ran down arab countries in their "holy war" without provocation and committed terrible notrosities. This however is a misconception, they don't give you the whole picture.
Musilms had for hundreds of years prior invaded european counries such as Spain for instance. There were many christian lands that were invaded.
The "Crusades" was actually a retaliation of the many years of muslim invasion and seeked to put a foot hold on arab countries to stop it once and for all.
I belive the Catholism aspect of it and the religeos aspect was a "trumpet" to get everyone excited and was a "cause" that the European populace could get behind and support at the time. There is nothing like waving a flag and saying "i have a righteos cause" to get people motivated to take some action, and religeon can be a powerfull motivator.
So then you watch in history the muslims woke up the sleeping giant and they got hell to pay for their efforts. It was so memorable apparently what the europeans did to the muslims we all but forget it was in retaliation to muslim invasions.
Now to connect this to now.
Iraq and Afganastan may be closer to a "Crusade" than you think.
Think about 911, you could think of that as the initial attack that awakes the "sleeping giant". Now what happens, does Bush say he lets do a war for catholism?? NO the flag or cause of the day has changed from religeon to "Democracy and freedom" that is now the giuse he drapes over the war to justify it and rally people when in fact the real reason (just like the real reason during the crusades was not religeon in my opinion) the real reason is trying to strategicaly put a foot hold on muslims countries in order to try to reduce risk of attacks. Its paying back a flesh wound for a decapitation as well. Its not wise to instigate with certain countries or people (Americans are one of them)

In a nutshell its history repeating itself. You have the initial attack by muslims and then you soon watch the whole sky falling over muslim countries. And instead of mask the crusaders wore at that time wich was catholithism the new mask is that of "Democracy and Freedom for all"

Well anyway what do you guys think? Solid theory? Where are the holes? What are the strenghths? Input is always appreciated

It may be true what you are thinking but I am not sure.JM

Originally posted by Fishy
Actually Saladin especially did not allow his troops to do anything like that, i'm not saying it didn't happen. But Saladin had a lot of respect for the enemy soldiers, not the rulers but the soldiers because they were willing to die for their believes. Saladin held many prisoners but all were treated in a good manner, when the Crusade was over all of them were released. Saladin like it or not was one of the most civilised generals in the entire history...

Which is actually a great thing (as far as it can be said) that he kept his promise of non rape, since quran allowes ''sex with the right hand possesions'' - ie. woman captured in war, making him more noble than others whos book doesnt say anything like that, yet they commited such terrible crimes. (although as K Von Doom already mentioned, it was a ''norm'' of the war then)

Originally posted by Fishy
Actually Saladin especially did not allow his troops to do anything like that, i'm not saying it didn't happen. But Saladin had a lot of respect for the enemy soldiers, not the rulers but the soldiers because they were willing to die for their believes. Saladin held many prisoners but all were treated in a good manner, when the Crusade was over all of them were released. Saladin like it or not was one of the most civilised generals in the entire history...


I consider Saladin to be the MOST honourable figure of the Crusades - much more than the Nur Al Din, Richard I, Frederick and Godfrey - but even he was subject to the rules of war. In the siege of Jerusalem, Saladin's army broke through the walls so Belian of Ibelin rode out to try and sue for the city's surrender. Saladin said that he's already taken the city by storm so depriving his men of the customary "rape and pillage" (that came with storming a city) would be wrong.

Not all prisoners were treated in good manner when captured by Saladin, high ranking prisoners and common people were but Templars and Hospitallers were killed instantly because of their religious fervour. He personally even lopped of Reginald of Kerak's head (although the guy deserved it).

I never knew much about this - very informative KVD.

how do you consider Sverre, the Norwegian king who defied Rome.............................or dint history have time for him?

That guy you mentioned is probably written about in the Northern Crusades - not as well documented as the Middle Eastern Crusades. There were a few monarchs who didn't see eye to eye with Rome. Most notable was 'Holy Roman Emperor' Frederick, who was actually at war with Rome. This German Emperor was excommunicated twice by Rome for not fulfulling his crusading vows. He eventually went on crusade (the Fifth) and being a devious one, he made a deal with the Sultan of Egypt for Jerusalem. The Pope wasn't happy with the way he achieved the goal.

no he never took part in any crusades, he just defied Rome. Sverre was excommunicated, his defiance of Rome is used in the Norwegian National anthem as a Lutheran protestant state church it really fits right in, but then again it who really cares about the church here

Weren't there, like, 12 crusades, most of them diplomatic though?

4 major ones and a bunch of minor ones

Ahh, I see. They were all a case of "That place is in the Bible, so we have to take it," though, right?

Originally posted by BullitNutz
Ahh, I see. They were all a case of "That place is in the Bible, so we have to take it," though, right?

Basically. Only Jerusalem though.

I say we launch a crusade to take over Atlantis. That shit was in a book, shouldn't be hard, right?

crusade in the name off?

My dog, Buster. As good a reason as any!

Originally posted by K Von Doom
I consider Saladin to be the MOST honourable figure of the Crusades - much more than the Nur Al Din, Richard I, Frederick and Godfrey - but even he was subject to the rules of war. In the siege of Jerusalem, Saladin's army broke through the walls so Belian of Ibelin rode out to try and sue for the city's surrender. Saladin said that he's already taken the city by storm so depriving his men of the customary "rape and pillage" (that came with storming a city) would be wrong.

Not all prisoners were treated in good manner when captured by Saladin, high ranking prisoners and common people were but Templars and Hospitallers were killed instantly because of their religious fervour. He personally even lopped of Reginald of Kerak's head (although the guy deserved it).

Of course he did things like that, he could not avoid it... Nor could anybody else at that time, but fact still remains like you said he did try to prevent it or minimalize it. And unlike the Christian nations who just killed, raped or tortured any Muslim they could get their hands on he did show mercy to a lot of people...

Originally posted by Fishy
Of course he did things like that, he could not avoid it... Nor could anybody else at that time, but fact still remains like you said he did try to prevent it or minimalize it. And unlike the Christian nations who just killed, raped or tortured any Muslim they could get their hands on he did show mercy to a lot of people...

That's my point, so to say that "Saladin especially did not allow his troops to do anything like that" is incorrect.

However, in general, the Christian Crusaders were more barbaric and warlike compared to the Muslims - just compare the two main generals in the Third Crusade: Richard is remembered for his military skills, Saladin is remembered for his generosity.

Muslims had a special way of torture - Turks more like, Im not sure for the rest.

And thats putting people on the stake - they did it so that stake avoids all the major organs inside, so the torture could last a day or two before the victim dies.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Muslims had a special way of torture - Turks more like, Im not sure for the rest.

And thats putting people on the stake - they did it so that stake avoids all the major organs inside, so the torture could last a day or two before the victim dies.

The ottoman empire wasn't even a real power during the crusades...

Not to mention that those techniques were used later on and stolen by the romanians... Who put it threw the rest of the western world.. Or was it the other way around? I don't even remember, fact still remains the Muslims of that time or at least the most important muslim leader of that time was very civil. They would not have been would they have wanted revenge, they wanted peace and they wanted to keep their own lands... They were more then ready to fight for it. And they did, and won.

Originally posted by Fishy
I don't even remember, fact still remains the Muslims of that time or at least the most important muslim leader of that time was very civil.

Saladin may be the most famous but it was the Mamluks under Baybars that actually drove the Franks out of Palestine... and we wasn't as civil as Saladin, but a great general and also defeated an invading Mongol army.

Originally posted by K Von Doom
Saladin may be the most famous but it was the Mamluks under Baybars that actually drove the Franks out of Palestine... and we wasn't as civil as Saladin, but a great general and also defeated an invading Mongol army.

He wasn't the most important, afteral Saladin did become Kaliph

Originally posted by Fishy
He wasn't the most important, afteral Saladin did become Kaliph

You're referring to when Saladin became Sultan of Egypt? He was never the Caliph. The Caliphate of Baghdad, the centre of Muslim power, actually regarded Saladin as an usurper. I didn't say Baybar's was the most important but he achieved what Saladin set out to do - kick the Franks out of Palestine. Saladin managed to retake Jerusalem, Acre and the other cities occupied by the Europeans but lost some cities when Richard arrived, a truce was made afterwards then Richard left. Years later, Jerusalem was given back to the Franks via a deal between the Sultan of Egypt and Emperor Frederick.