[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Find someone else who is willing...what're you talking about? We're on a message board, remember.

Your rhetoric--pointing to the Koran and citing the risk of a global jihad as threatening as Hitler's rise in the 30's--would have us declaring war on an entire culture. You believe this is necessary because, sorry to say, you see the world in simple, polar terms. You seem to have no sense of subtlety or of the complicated dynamics of history. Because you think history is simple, you think it can be mastered. You honestly believe that history will vindicate you, as if history has ever obeyed anyone's predictions so simply as to unequivocally validate a historical prediction!?!

Well, except for Iraq turning out (sadly) exactly the way people like me said it would, but honestly, I don't want to hold that against you now. That'd just be petty.

Seriously, when one side of a debate's predictions have already fallen apart--"we'll be greeted as liberators"--and the other side's predictions have pretty much unfolded as if we were writing the very script none of us wanted to see enacted, then shouldn't one side acquiesce to the other?

I mean, since the "convenient battlefield" of Iraq is not what stopped the recent attempt at a massive terror strike--one almost on par with 9/11 itself--but it was instead the kind of international law enforcement which some--like, oh, I don't know: me--advocated on the very night of September 11th, then doesn't that warrant some reevaluation?

When you've been wrong this much, don't you think it's implicit upon you to really evaluate the point of view that has led to such miscalculations? Now, I don't know what you position was before the war in Iraq, but the way you're able to swallow the rationalizations for it that have been thrown up since the WMD excuse fell apart, I'm betting you've been with the administration all the way, and if that's the case, then really, you need to take a look at yourself and ask:

If there's no rational reason for me to believe in this agenda, what psychological need am I fulfilling by casting the world in this light? Why do I want to believe this is the way it has to be, when it so clearly isn't?

There is a cancer spreading across the globe and it is gaining strength, speed and momentum. The President has done what he thought was best to keep from losing the free world by default. This cancer seems to have no easy cure but the thing to do is to fight it anywhere and everywhere possible.

The answer is NOT to do nothing or to pretend by ignoring it that things will get better.

They will only get worse.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

This doesn't mean however that SA had anything to do with it.

Umm, did you only get that far into my post before hitting reply? Try reading the rest of that first paragraph.

"and the [Saudi] government, through gifts/grants/loans to other governments and Middle-East-based NGOs, was the single biggest provider of financial support to Islamic Fundamentalists/Terrorists in the Middle East. Heck, Saudi Arabia knew about Osama bin Laden for years--He had training camps in Saudi Arabia--but did nothing to suppress his movement until after the 9/11 attacks, and then only after being pressured to do so by the US government."

The Saudi government has made it possible for Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists to function and prosper through major cash support for fundamentalist Islamic groups. Do you need a diagram to understand it.

Step 1: Saudi Arabia > > > [money] > > > Fundamentalist Islamic groups
Step 2: Fundamentalist Islamic groups > > > [money] > > > terrorist organizations and other organizations sympathetic to the terrorists ideals


Saudi Arabia > > > [political cover (through inaction)] > > > Fundamentalist Islamic groups operating/training in their country
(I think this is the biggest problem I have with the Saudi government. They admit to knowing about al Qaeda and Osama and other terrorists being in their country but they did nothing about it. So, through lack of action against these groups they provide a level of tacit approval for these groups that would not otherwise exist if they quickly and publicly found out them and deported or jailed them.)

[Ron Goodman]

The Saudi royal family has been working this balancing act for years. They allow the Wahabi fundementalists to do what they want, and give them money to do so. In return, they get to keep on running things. It doesn't appear to be a very stable situation in the long run.

[swiftp]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Find someone else who is willing...what're you talking about? We're on a message board, remember.

Your rhetoric--pointing to the Koran and citing the risk of a global jihad as threatening as Hitler's rise in the 30's--would have us declaring war on an entire culture. You believe this is necessary because, sorry to say, you see the world in simple, polar terms. You seem to have no sense of subtlety or of the complicated dynamics of history. Because you think history is simple, you think it can be mastered. You honestly believe that history will vindicate you, as if history has ever obeyed anyone's predictions so simply as to unequivocally validate a historical prediction!?!

Well, except for Iraq turning out (sadly) exactly the way people like me said it would, but honestly, I don't want to hold that against you now. That'd just be petty.

Seriously, when one side of a debate's predictions have already fallen apart--"we'll be greeted as liberators"--and the other side's predictions have pretty much unfolded as if we were writing the very script none of us wanted to see enacted, then shouldn't one side acquiesce to the other?

I mean, since the "convenient battlefield" of Iraq is not what stopped the recent attempt at a massive terror strike--one almost on par with 9/11 itself--but it was instead the kind of international law enforcement which some--like, oh, I don't know: me--advocated on the very night of September 11th, then doesn't that warrant some reevaluation?

When you've been wrong this much, don't you think it's implicit upon you to really evaluate the point of view that has led to such miscalculations? Now, I don't know what you position was before the war in Iraq, but the way you're able to swallow the rationalizations for it that have been thrown up since the WMD excuse fell apart, I'm betting you've been with the administration all the way, and if that's the case, then really, you need to take a look at yourself and ask:

If there's no rational reason for me to believe in this agenda, what psychological need am I fulfilling by casting the world in this light? Why do I want to believe this is the way it has to be, when it so clearly isn't?

Well said - its about time people put the counter view to the US Neocon agenda. Funny but they are supersensitive about counter viewpoints. There was a web site I saw once containing a list of countries the US have bombed since the end of the Second World War - its long! I think there was a survey in the UK recently asking who was the most dangerous man in the World - Bush won by a clear mile. The sooner he is gone the better. In fact Tony Blair and President Musharaf have issued a statment in the last 24 hours backing up my view.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

The Saudi royal family has been working this balancing act for years. They allow the Wahabi fundementalists to do what they want, and give them money to do so. In return, they get to keep on running things. It doesn't appear to be a very stable situation in the long run.

As long as there is a superpower who depends on the Saudi oil there is no way anyone will topple the Royal monarchy. You see, they will do what is necessary to maintain order.

It seems we have lost our vitality and our will to win.

We're like wild animals raised in captivity. We no longer have the skills or instinct to function in the real world jungle and we think that the politically correct rules of metro sexual 21st century we live by are what will rule the day when the time comes.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

There is a cancer spreading across the globe and it is gaining strength, speed and momentum. The President has done what he thought was best to keep from losing the free world by default. This cancer seems to have no easy cure but the thing to do is to fight it anywhere and everywhere possible.

The answer is NOT to do nothing or to pretend by ignoring it that things will get better.

They will only get worse.

The President was wrong. The President made the cancer worse. Time for smarter medicine. To extend your metaphor, the President doped the world so full of radiation that it weakened the immune system, allowing the cancer to spread. What we need now is a gamma knife to excise the tumor, and exotic cocktails to curb the growth...oh, there I go taking a metaphor too far, but at least I was saying something different then what's been said a million times before. You could take a lesson from that example, I think.

Stop pretending that anyone is advocating "ignoring" the problem. These rhetorical games where you ignore reality and cling to maxims like "stay the course" while the corruption and moral bankruptcy of your entire agenda becomes more and more transparent are exactly what lost the Republicans the election. Time to wake up and move on.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The President was wrong. The President made the cancer worse. Time for smarter medicine. To extend your metaphor, the President doped the world so full of radiation that it weakened the immune system, allowing the cancer to spread. What we need now is a gamma knife to excise the tumor, and exotic cocktails to curb the growth...oh, there I go taking a metaphor too far, but at least I was saying something different then what's been said a million times before. You could take a lesson from that example, I think.

Stop pretending that anyone is advocating "ignoring" the problem. These rhetorical games where you ignore reality and cling to maxims like "stay the course" while the corruption and moral bankruptcy of your entire agenda becomes more and more transparent are exactly what lost the Republicans the election. Time to wake up and move on.

The patient's cancer would have metastasized more than it has (Somalia) if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Furthermore, instead of two rogue nations which are trying to become our world's latest atomic pile-ups, there would be three!

And you can't figure out how to deal with the problem in Iraq so how could you feel confident to protect America from future shots?. And, trust me, it would have only been a matter of time before the attacks intensified and increased at the rate things were going between 1992 - 2003 and no matter how docile and how much we laid on our backs and showed our bellies it wouldn't have helped. They already have told us SEVERAL times they figured us for cut n runners whenever things got tough and they were understandably consternated by GWB's decision to fight and not flee. They rejoiced at the Democratic victory because the Dems are more likely to pull out of Iraq.

But to the point, by pulling out of Iraq we'd be, essentially, ignoring the problem.

By not recognizing the danger it is essentially ignoring the problem.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Tali, Tali, Tali, while I am not apologizing for Rome's actions, their actions was a response to the Muslim's first crusade against anyone that wasn't Muslim.

They were attempting to push them back and to undo the harm they did.

It just went totally wrong. And both sides sucked.

But my point still stands. This belief reaches waay back before the US even existed.

You are simply wrong.

Kev, Kev, Kev, how many times can a single human be wrong in a single thread before the moon turns purple?

Muslim's first crusade against anyone that wasn't Muslim?

LOL.

It's really funny how all the projecting is going on, but it's also scary to see the gross lack of knowledge about history. Is that an american thing? Or is it a christian thing?

Even before Islam came up, christianity was fully engaged in persecuting other beliefs:

Constans was killed in 350, and soon after his brother became the sole emperor of the entire empire three years later. Constantius, also a Christian, decreed that all pagan temples in the empire be immediately closed. He warned that anyone who dared still offer sacrifices of worship to the once-revered gods and goddesses in these temples were to be put to death. Similarly, any governor to refused to enforce this decree was also to be punished.

But it wasn't just the emperors who persecuted the pagans. Lay Christians took advantage of these new anti-pagan laws by destroying and plundering the temples. Theologians and prominent ecclesiastics soon followed. One such example is St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. When Gratian became Roman emperor in 375, Ambrose, who was one of his closest educators, persuaded him to further suppress paganism. The emperor, at Ambrose's advice, confiscated the properties of the pagan temples; seized the properties of the vestal virgins and pagan priests, and removed the statue of the Goddess of Victory from the Roman Senate.

When Gratian delegated the government of the eastern half of the Roman Empire to Theodosius the Great in 379, the situation became worse for the pagans. Theodosius prohibited all forms of pagan worship and allowed the temples to be robbed, plundered, and ruthlessly destroyed by monks and other enterprising Christians.

A prominent example of this persecution is the case of the philosopher Hypathia of Alexandria. Hypathia was the daughter of the mathematician Theon. She was one of the most learned individuals of her time. She taught and elucidated Greek mathematics and philosophy. She lectured widely in Athens and Alexandria. But her widespread popularity and intelligence, coupled with her complete lack of interest in Christianity, so irritated the Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril, that his attacks on her inflamed a mob to murder her in the year 415. The cruelty of the method of her murder can be seen by the description of it by the historian Edward Gibbon:

"On a fatal day, in the holy season of Lent, Hypathia was torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly butchered by the hands of Peter the Reader and a troop of savage and merciless fanatics; her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster shells, and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames. The just progress of inquiry and punishment was stopped by seasonable gifts; but the murder of Hypathia has imprinted an indelible strain on the character and religion of Cyril of Alexandria."

Under Theodosius the Nicene or Orthodox version of Christianity became the official religion, engendering conditions for conflict with the mostly Germanic tribes who had converted to the "heretical" Arian form of Christianity. In the year 416, under Theodosius II, a law was passed to bar pagans from public employment. All this was done to coerce pagans to convert to Christianity. Theodosius also persecuted Judaism, destroying a number of synagogues.

Northern Europe

In Northern Europe, Norse pagans were the subject of much religious intolerance from Christians. The priests were killed, temples torn down and the followers persecuted and killed.

In 1087 king Inge I of Sweden, who earlier had been forced away, traveled with his housecarls through Smalandia and Ostrogothia, riding both day and night, until he arrived in Sweden. Having arrived at Old Uppsala, he surrounded the hall of Blot-Sweyn, and set the hall on fire. When the king ran out, he was immediately slain. This is probably the date of the destruction of the Temple at Uppsala.

The tradition seem to have remained even after the christianization and in early Swedish law books there is listed a fine for the crime of blóting.

Greece


During the christianization of Greece, there was much persecution of Ancient Greek religion. Followers were the subject of a great deal of religious intolerance from Christians. The priests were killed, the followers persecuted and killed, and the temples torn down to be made into limestone quarries, Christian Churches, or civic buildings. Many followers of the Hellenistic gods were punished and slain by Christians, and those caught worshipping or making sacrifices to their gods were often imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Many myths and accusations were issued against the Pagans of Greece. Christians used false accusations that the pagan Greeks killed Christians at their temples during ritualistic sacrifices to justify much religious persecution and blood shed. Many of these accusations were in part caused by a mistaken association with Greek pagans and the pagans of Thrace, who unlike the Greeks did commit human blood sacrifices.

Other Examples of Persecution

The conflict between the Orthodox and Arian versions of Christianity was one of the causes of conflict between Christian peoples, in particular the Vatican supported assaults on the kingdoms of the Arian Vandals and Goths.

Source: Historical persecution by Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That persecution by catholic christians, after the edict of 380 that created the catholic religion, against other creeds of christianity, opened the way for the islamic empire in its first expansion. The christians in Egypt and the rest of North Africa were fed up with the intolerance of the catholic church and the christian roman empire, so that they asked the islamic empire to liberate them. They voluntarily preferred life under the protection of Islam, where they could continue to profess their faith as people of the book undisturbed, and paid taxes to the islamic empire instead of paying them to the roman empire, they preferred life as secondclass-citizens, towards a life in persecution and fear under the roman/catholic empire.

Just to show you how the christian roman empire, during its byzantine-phase, engaged in nearly constant battles and wars in order to restore the territory of the ancient roman empire:

Age of Justinian I
Justinian I depicted on one of the famous mosaics of the St. Vitale church in Ravenna.
Enlarge
Justinian I depicted on one of the famous mosaics of the St. Vitale church in Ravenna.

The reign of Justinian I, which began in 527, saw a period of Byzantine expansion into former Roman territories. The 6th century also saw the beginning of a long series of conflicts with the Byzantine Empire's traditional early enemies, such as the Sassanid Persians, Slavs and Bulgars. Theological debates, such as over the question of Monophysitism, also caused civil unrest.

Justinian, the son of an Illyrian peasant, had perhaps already exerted effective control during the reign of his predecessor, Justin I (518–527). Justin I was a former officer in the imperial army who had been chief of the guards to Anastasius I, and had been proclaimed emperor (almost at the age of 70) after Anastasius' death. Justinian was a nephew of Justin and was later adopted as Justin's son. Justinian would become one of the most refined people of his century, inspired by the dream to re-establish Roman rule over all the Mediterranean world. He reformed the administration and the law, and with the help of brilliant generals such as Belisarius and Narses, he regained some of the lost Roman teritories in the west, conquering much of Italy, North Africa, and a small area in southern Spain.

In 532, attempting to secure his eastern frontier, Justinian signed a peace treaty with the Sassanid Shah Khosrau I agreeing to pay a large annual tribute to the Sassinids. The same year, the Nika riots erupted and lasted for one week in the capital. This was a most violent revolt, and nearly half of Constantinople was destroyed.

The western conquests began in 533, as Justinian's sent Belisarius to reclaim the former province of North Africa with a small army of 15,000 men, mainly mercenaries. An earlier expedition in 468 had been a failure, but this new venture was successful. The kingdom of the Vandals at Carthage lacked the strength of former times under King Gaiseric and the Vandals surrendered after few battles against Belisarius' forces. General Belisarius received a Roman triumph in Constantinople with the last Vandal king, Gelimer, as his prisoner. However, the reconquest of North Africa would take a few more years to stabilize. It was not until 548 that the major local independent tribes were subdued.

In 535, Justinian I launched his most ambitious campaign, the reconquest of Italy. Italy was under the rule of the Ostrogoths. He dispatched an army to march overland from Dalmatia while the main contingent, transported on ships and again under the command of General Belisarius, disembarked in Sicily easily conquering the island. The marches on the Italian mainland were initially victorious and the major cities, including Naples, Rome and the capital Ravenna, fell one after the other. The Goths were seemingly defeated and Belisarius was recalled to Constantinople in 541 by Justinian. Belisarius brought with him to Constantinople the Ostrogoth king Witiges as a prisoner in chains. However, the Ostrogoths and their supporters were soon reunited under the energetic command of Totila. The ensuing Gothic Wars were an exhausting series of sieges, battles and retreats which consumed almost all the Byzantine and Italian fiscal resources, impoverishing much of the countryside. Belisarius was eventually recalled by Justinian, who had lost trust in his commander. At a certain point, the Byzantines seemed to be on the verge of losing all the gained possessions. After having neglected to provide sufficient financial and logistical support to the desperate troops under Belisarius' former command, in the summer of 552 Justinian gathered a massive army of 35,000 men (mostly Asian and Germanic mercenaries) to contribute to the war effort. The astute and diplomatic eunuch Narses was chosen for the command. Totila was defeated and died at the Battle of Busta Gallorum. Totila's successor, Teias, was likewise defeated at the Battle of Mons Lactarius (central Italy, October 552). Despite continuing resistance from a few Goth garrisons, and two subsequent invasions by the Franks and Alamanni, the war for the reconquest of the Italian peninsula came to an end.


Justinian's program of reconquest was further extended in 554 when a Byzantine army managed to seize a small part of Spain from the Visigoths. All the main Mediterranean islands were also now under Byzantine control. Aside from these conquests, Justinian revised the ancient Roman legal code in the new Corpus Juris Civilis. Even though the laws were still written in Latin, the language itself was becoming archaic and poorly understood even by those who wrote the new code. Under Justinian's reign, the Church of Hagia Sofia ("Holy Wisdom"), the most famous and important of the Empire, was rebuilt in the 530s, having been destroyed during the Nika riots. The 6th century was also a time of flourishing culture and even though Justinian closed the university at Athens, the Empire produced notable people such as the epic poet Nonnus, the lyric poet Paul the Silentiary, the historian Procopius, the natural philosopher John Philoponus among others.

The conquests in the west meant that other parts of the Empire were left almost unguarded even though Justinian was a great builder of fortifications in Byzantine territories throughout his reign. Khosrau I had, as early as 540, broken the pact previously signed with Justinian and plundered Antiochia. The only way Justinian could forestall him was to increase the sum he paid to the Persians every year. The Balkans were subjected to repeated incursions where Slavs had first crossed the imperial frontiers during the reign of Justin I. The Slavs took advantage of the sparsely-deployed Byzantine troops and pressed on as far as the Gulf of Corinth. The Kutrigur Bulgars had also attacked in 540. The Slavs invaded Thrace in 545 and in 548 assaulted Dyrrachium, an important port on the Adriatic Sea. In 550, the Sclaveni pushed on as far to reach within 65 kilometers of Constantinople itself. In 559, the Eastern Roman Empire found itself unable to repel a great invasion of Kutrigurs and Sclaveni. Divided in three columns, the invaders reached Thermopylae, the Gallipoli peninsula and the suburbs of Constantinople. The Slavs feared the intact power of the Danube Byzantine fleet and of the Utigurs (paid by the Byzantines themselves) more than the resistance of the ill-prepared Byzantine imperial army. The Empire was safe, but in the following years the Byzantine control in the Balkans was severely reduced.

Soon after the death of Justinian in 565, the Germanic Lombards, a former imperial foederati tribe, invaded and conquered much of Italy. The Visigoths conquered Cordoba, the main Byzantine city in Spain, first in 572 and then definitively in 584. The last Byzantine strongholds in Spain were swept away twenty years later. The Turks emerged in Crimea, and, in 577, a horde of some 100,000 Slavs had invaded Thrace and Illyricum. Sirmium, the most important Roman city on the Danube, was lost in 582, but the Byzantines managed to maintain control of the river for several more years even though they increasingly lost control of the inner provinces.
Empress Theodora and her retinue (mosaic from Basilica of San Vitale, 6th century).
Enlarge
Empress Theodora and her retinue (mosaic from Basilica of San Vitale, 6th century).

Justinian's successor, Justin II, refused to pay Justinian's tribute to the Sassanid Empire. This resulted in a long and costly war which lasted until the reign of his successors Tiberius II and Maurice, focused over the control over the disputed territory of Armenia. Fortunately for the Byzantines, the Persian Empire was weakend by a civil war. Maurice was able to take advantage of his friendship with the new king Khosrau II (whose disputed accession to the Persian throne had been assisted by Maurice) in order to sign a favorable peace treaty in 591. This treaty gave the Byzantine Empire control over much of western Armenia. Maurice reorganized the remaining Byzantine possessions in the west into two Exarchates, the Ravenna and the Carthage. Maurice increased the Exarchates' self-defense capabilities and delegated them to civil authorities.

The Avars and later the Bulgars overwhelmed much of the Balkans, and in the early 7th century the Sassanids invaded and conquered Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Armenia. The Persians were eventually defeated and the territories were recovered by Emperor Heraclius in 627. However, the unexpected appearance of the Arabs, newly united and converted to Islam overwhelmed an Empire exhausted from the Persian wars, and the southern provinces were overrun.

Source: Byzantine Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's skip a few centuries of byzantine warfare with all kinds of enemies, and we arrive right before the time of the first crusade. The sunnitic seljuks on their way to attack Egypt, who under the shiitic fatimides also controlled Jerusalem, posed a great threat to the deteriorating byzantine empire, and occasionally harassed christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem.

In a desperate attempt to save the byzantine empire, the byzantine emperor called the western christian pope for help. The catholic pope saw that crisis of Byzantine as a good opportunity to try to reunify the western with the eastern church, and to bring peace to the christian countries, that were in chaos, due to ravaging christian mercenaries and knights, that had no other outlet for their violence after the barbars in western Europe were defeated.
The pope developed the idea to direct that violent energy for the purpose of recapturing Jerusalem from the control of muslims, through a holy war, a crusade.

Ironically enough, the byzantine empire, that called for the help got dismanteled and defeated later, not by the seljuks or any other muslims, but by christians from the fourth crusade.

So, your comicstrip-approach to history aside, what harm did the invasion of Egypt and North Africa, by the arabs, do to the christians there, that the roman empire or the christian byzantine empire did not cause many times over before?

By the way, to compare arabic empire-armies of the past that fought with christian empire-armies, with today's radical islamistic terrorists that target innocent civilians is beyond mere dishonesty.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Taliesin the Crusades were a series of wars initiated by Christians to win back their holy lands from Muslims. Who attacked said lands and took them over first.

The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Note this above was talking in the PAST. Not now. Don't over-react and attempt to say I am referring to modern muslims.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.


That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

The Real History of the Crusades

In other words the Crusades were just a direct response to Muslim forced expansion.

I am not condoning or apologizing for the Crusades two rights don't make a wrong.

Just showing where these actions you are blaming on the US existed before the US.

So to blame the US is asinine.

By the way, to compare arabic empire-armies of the past that fought with christian empire-armies, with today's radical islamistic terrorists that target innocent civilians is beyond mere dishonesty.

WRONG because they are doing it for the SAME REASONS. They believe it's crusade time again.

Your blaming the US for these men's actions is the dishonest part.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. These groups are as well.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Taliesin the Crusades were a series of wars initiated by Christians to win back their holy lands from Muslims. Who attacked said lands and took them over first.

The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Note this above was talking in the PAST. Not now. Don't over-react and attempt to say I am referring to modern muslims.

What you seem not to understand is that empires naturally expand during their high times. The roman empire did it, and when it bacame the christian-roman-empire, ie. the byzantine empire it did the same, expanding and leading nearly constant wars, but even worse, even within its own territory there was no peace, the catholic church, once it developed its doctrine in the edicts of the 4th century, started to encourage the christian emperors to use force against heretics, that is after the christian roman empire, enforced all its constitutents to convert to chirstianity.
North Africa, including Egypt developed a christian faith slightly different from the interpretation and doctrine of the catholic church in rome and was therefore subject to persecutions, harassment and oppression by the byzantine forces that conquered North Africa, including Egypt from christianized barbars.

In that context of dissatifaction the newly established islamic empire was able to defeat and expell the byzantinic forces in North Africa, that were regarded by the locals as oppressors, and they were happy enough to find their new rulers to be way more tolerant than the byzantine empire.
The arabs did not try to forcefully convert anyone, as the expansion was strictly secular in nature, the locals had merely to pay a special tax, which was not new to them, as the byzantine empire equally ordered them to pay a tax to Rome.

The Real History of the Crusades

Originally Posted by Kevin 

In other words the Crusades were just a direct response to Muslim forced expansion.

I am not condoning or apologizing for the Crusades two rights don't make a wrong.

I'm sure you mean two wrongs don't make a right, but ok.

Otherwise, no the crusades were not a reaction towards muslim expansion, since the muslim expansion was secular, and well within the parameters of every other empire, and since the christians were not forced to convert, and christians could continue their pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and because the secular expansion of islamic empires was done centuries before the first crusade.

No, there was a whole other motivation, sparked from the chaotic development inside the christian countries in Europe after the barbars in the west were defeated and forcibly converted to christianity. Christian mercenaries and knights were ravaging the christian countries devoid of an enemy and task, as well as the wish of the catholic pope to regain the unity of christianity by reunifiying the two christian chruches, was the main motivitation to call for a holy war against the muslim pagans.
The idea to reconquer territory lost centuries ago, and espescially the idea to reconquer Jerusalem was only the PR-tool with which to sell it to the masses.

It went horribly wrong, when the first crusaders arrived in Antioch, they besieged it and eventually conquered it only to massacre all inhabitants, and when they arrived in Jerusalem, where christians, jews and muslims lived, they did the same, later crusades were even directed against christian heretics, and the fourth crusade dismanteled the byzantine empire.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Just showing where these actions you are blaming on the US existed before the US.

So to blame the US is asinine.

Quite to the contrary, you seem asinine, as you are seemingly not able to read what I'm writing and saying. I was never claiming that the US invented the mindset of radical islamists wanting to conquer the world, that one they developed themselves, I rightfully claim that the US instrumentalised that ideology of the radical islamists, supported it, worked together with Saudi Arabia to further spread it in the islamic world, produced millions of primary-schoolbooks centering around that ideology and espescially warfare and martyrhood, and trained the gathered radical islamists from around the islamic world in guerillia-warfare, terrorism, organisation and logistics, for the purpose of defeating the Soviet-Union and keeping out communism from the middle-east.

Through that massive instrumentalisation, the US considerably strenghtened radical Islamism and helped it gain mainstream-appeal among the islamic world.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

WRONG because they are doing it for the SAME REASONS. They believe it's crusade time again.

Yes, indeed the radical islamists believe strongly that the islamic world is under siege, that the western world, led by the US is leading a crusade against it, just like in the good old middle-age-time, and they want to mobilise the islamic world against that supposed threat...

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Your blaming the US for these men's actions is the dishonest part.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. These groups are as well.

I agree, everyone is responsible for his own deeds, the radical islamists and their terrorists are definitely responsible for their deeds, and in the hereafter, they will, if God wills, be punished severely by God.
Nonetheless it's important to acknowledge the US' instrumentalisation and support for and strenghtening of radical Islamism during the coldwar, and for that deed the US is itself responsible, in order to get a complete picture.

Taliesin

P.S.: See you, tommorrow, Kev.

[Kevin]

Otherwise, no the crusades were not a reaction towards muslim expansion, since the muslim expansion was secular, and well within the parameters of every other empire, and since the christians were not forced to convert, and christians could continue their pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and because the secular expansion of islamic empires was done centuries before the first crusade.

No, that isn't what I said at all. And no, no they were not secular Tali.

The US didn't give them any beliefs or ideas they didn't already have.

And yes, the Christian Crusades were a DIRECT RESPONSE of the Muslim invasions.

Admit it or not. Like it or not.

I refuse to play this wordy spin game with you.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

The patient's cancer would have metastasized more than it has (Somalia) if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Furthermore, instead of two rogue nations which are trying to become our world's latest atomic pile-ups, there would be three!

And you can't figure out how to deal with the problem in Iraq so how could you feel confident to protect America from future shots?

Who says I can't? You haven't been listening. Just because you and Bush can't think beyond "stay the course" doesn't mean that the rest of the world is stuck in the same mindset.

And the rest of the world is the solution. We need to internationalize our presence in Iraq. But it's going to take some serious American crow-eating to make that happen. In short, we need a new president who will admit that America was wrong to invade in the first place.

But the most important problem with your statement is that Iraq has nothing to do with "future shots." They never took a first shot at us?!? Have you gone so deep into this miasma of your own rationalizations that you've completely lost touch with the reality? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...REMEMBER! Even Bush admitted it.

Really, it's scary how thoroughly you've deluded yourself into believing this neo-con world view--despite all the facts that have now been brought to bear in repudiating it.

[Kevin]

There is no "The rest of the world against Bush"

That is a figment of your imagination.

And BTW, Saddam did announce war against the US before we attacked.

Not that this war was just about those who had something to do with 9/11

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

The patient's cancer would have metastasized more than it has (Somalia) if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Furthermore, instead of two rogue nations which are trying to become our world's latest atomic pile-ups, there would be three!

And you can't figure out how to deal with the problem in Iraq so how could you feel confident to protect America from future shots?. And, trust me, it would have only been a matter of time before the attacks intensified and increased at the rate things were going between 1992 - 2003 and no matter how docile and how much we laid on our backs and showed our bellies it wouldn't have helped. They already have told us SEVERAL times they figured us for cut n runners whenever things got tough and they were understandably consternated by GWB's decision to fight and not flee. They rejoiced at the Democratic victory because the Dems are more likely to pull out of Iraq.

But to the point, by pulling out of Iraq we'd be, essentially, ignoring the problem.

By not recognizing the danger it is essentially ignoring the problem.

Oh, I inadvertently cut some of your response. They were not consternated by GWB's decision to fight. They're delighted by it. Bush is their wild wet dream of a President. If we pull out of Iraq their movement falls apart, that's why they're scrambling for new goals to fire up their troops. These nut jobs want an apocalyptic war with the West and you and Bush want to give it to them.

Really, you're not that dissimilar. If only you could look across the field and see each other clearly, you'd realize that philosophically, you see the world in pretty much the same terms.

What's at stake in Iraq is not the outcome of some global clash of civilizations--we already won that war, long ago. What's at stake in Iraq is Iraq. And you inflating this beyond those proportions allows you to disregard the scale of human suffering inflicted on Iraq by our mistaken war, because to you it is simply collateral damage in some cosmic struggle between good and evil--as if.

We owe it to the innocent people of Iraq to fix the mess we made--that's why Iraq matters, not because it's a domino in some new Cold War-esque paranoia about the global Muslim uprising.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No, that isn't what I said at all. And no, no they were not secular Tali.

The US didn't give them any beliefs or ideas they didn't already have.

And yes, the Christian Crusades were a DIRECT RESPONSE of the Muslim invasions.

Admit it or not. Like it or not.

I refuse to play this wordy spin game with you.

Wait, maybe I should also play the game of oneliners.

Obviously you view anything beyond a oneliner.

As a wordy spingame.

Yes, Kev, the islamic expansion was first and foremost secular for worldly riches.

Religion was way secondary, a bonus.

The religion served merely as a unification-bond between arabs.

Which made them politically strong.

Oh, and the US didn't have to develop any new beliefs or ideas.

It sufficed completely to instrumentalise the ideology of radical Islamism.

And to help it gain mainstream-appeal.

And no, the crusades were not a direct response to the expansion of the islamic empire.

Since the completely normal secular expansion happened centuries before the first crusade.

How direct can that be?

Admit it or not.

Like it or not.

I refuse to further play this onesided discussion.

Since you obviously have nothing substantial to provide.

In order to make the discussion worthwhile.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Yes, Kev, the islamic expansion was first and foremost secular for worldly riches.

We disagree here.

The religion served merely as a unification-bond between arabs.

They didn't just go after Arabs.

And to help it gain mainstream-appeal.

That is your opinion. One I don't share .

And no, the crusades were not a direct response to the expansion of the islamic empire.

Yes, yes they were.

"When originally conceived, the aim was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims while supporting the Byzantine Empire against the "ghazwat" of the Seljuq"

They were attempting to push back the Muslim hoards that took it when they had their little crusade.

Your beliefs about it simply do not jive with everyone elses.

You take your bizarro beliefs and treat them as if they were the norm. They aren't. They are the fringe.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ak! Ak! Ak!