 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 07:00 pm |
|
The Crusades
The Muslim Game:
Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions.”
The Truth:
Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.
Here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In theory, the Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,372nd year.
The period of Crusader “aggression” compresses to about 20 years of actual military campaign, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.
============
Next article:
"Muhammad never killed anyone.”
The Muslim Game:
In order to give others the impression that Muhammad was a man of peace, Muslims sometimes claim that he never killed anyone. By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention).
The Truth:
By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either.
Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders. In Muhammad’s case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know.
There were the men taken prisoner at Badr (including one who cried out for his children at the point of execution), a mother of five (stabbed to death for questioning Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet), dozens of Jewish citizens, including poets and merchants who were accused of mocking Islam, numerous adulterers, at least one slave girl, 800 Qurayza men and boys taken captive and beheaded on Muhammad’s order, a Qurayza woman made delirious by the execution of her family, and an unfortunate individual who was tortured to death so that the prophet of Islam could discover his hidden treasure and then “marry” his freshly-widowed wife.
Indirectly, Muhammad is also responsible for the millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered down through the centuries by those carrying on his legacy of Jihad. Not only did he kill, he is truly one of the bloodiest figures in history.
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 07:34 pm |
|
A great summary of what happened.
I remember as a child learning, or rather, re-learning about the Crusades. I was initially a total enthusiast for the Crusades, and I have various reasons, some of which you might not like, deRodes, such as having participated in the Crusades, having come to believe, or even know, that reincarnation is real.
I was sorely disappointed when the modernist teachers of history at the Quaker school I attended didn't like the Crusades, felt they were "unjustified".
Now, as I hear the real facts recited so nicely for the dozenth time in the last two years or so, I have to ask myself how sick spiritually we actually are that we have come to insist on surrender as the "way, the truth and the light", when pacifism is the excoriation of our most vital energies by those who cannot abide having to fight for their own psychological and spiritual redemption.
Peace, Quietism, that is the way according to these sick fools.
I do think that as this information continues to circulate attitudes about the Crusades, and especially attitudes about the Muslims who created the necessity for the Crusades will change.
Hollywood is afraid of the topic. The next election will be very, very important. Let us say that certain actions carried out in Hollywood will be the only ones to induce the turnabout of that attitude of idolization of pacifism.
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 09:23 pm |
|
When did you know you'd been reincarnated?
I have delusions of grandeur, too.  I've always felt that I was part of royalty, of course, as it turns out, some of my ancestors were royals.
how sick spiritually we actually are that we have come to insist on surrender as the "way, the truth and the light"
We've become apologists for things that were instigated by others. It's sickening! Even the Bible says, "there's a time to kill." God, Himself, has executed untoll numbers...for LESS than what the Muslims have perpetrated against Christians. I'm sure, though, that what goes around will, ultimately, come around.
The next election will be very, very important.
I'm thoroughly disgusted with the Republican who voted for McCain! The only thing they know about him is that he was a POW. Whoop-ti-do! They don't know that he & Kennedy attempted to shove amnesty down our throats; they don't know about the Gang of 14; and they don't know that he's about as Republican as Hillary.
Oh, just thought of something. Got to find it. Okay, here we go:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/QuoteQuiz/index.php
GUESS WHICH COLLECTIVIST SAID IT...
... and find out on which side of the gulag fence you'll be tomorrow.
(Warning: some questions are more equal than others, and some answers will make you want to slap yourself upside the head with a shovel).
You can click on one or all of them. Each one has an answer, sarcastic or otherwise.
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 03:28 am |
|
Believe it or not, royalty has nothing to do with it. What it has to do with is a whole series of experiences, at which point I had to surrender to the idea, whether I liked it or not.
One of the experiences happened as I walked through the Vatican museum with a frriend of many years. Completely involuntary and completely unexpected.
The point we can agree on is that the West has lost its capacity for self-defense in its apparent attempt to overcome the aspect of itself that got revealed after we examined our historical record of our dominance of the world for the past several centuries.
The worst ones are the ones who have lost all faith in a capacity to forgive one's self, or one's historical antecedents, for their excesses.
Actually, if a person is racist, and the person has no recourse against the person's own racism, then what the person does is suppress and repress all aspects of his racist self.
Then, having failed to overcome racism in himself, but having succeeded in splitting off the racist part of himself, the person attacks anyone and everyone who may point out whatever real negative aspects a person of another race, creed or national origin might have (and sex and sexual orientation as well).
Every aspect of egoism is treated as if it were automatically egotism.
I have to blame a common misinterpretation of Christianity for this attitude as well.
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 06:58 pm |
|
Bondage in the name of tolerance
By Debra Saunders
So now the UK pays welfare benefits to the harem of Islamic men. What an abandonment of values and what a travesty of the equality of the sexes, and all, by the way, at the expense, not just culturally, in terms of an eroded identity, of the UK taxpayer who now pays to have his country and its identity undermined.
And to what end we ask is this attitude adopted by the once-upon-a-time "Man for All Seasons" archbishop?
It is called "anima-possession", the possession by the feminine value at the expense of rationality, the making of a taboo out of the notion that we have committed a misdeed when he have offended someone by having our own value system.
Q: What kind of Christian is the Archbishop of Canterbury?
A: One without balls, and therefore unable to be one with heart! Because, yeah, yeah, it takes balls to have heart. Spinal column as well, and, of course, I hasten to add that balls is a behavioral "as if" metaphor for capacity to take on tough stands and enforce them, not limited to the bruter sex, then, obviously.
Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, endorsed adopting some aspects of Sharia law for Muslims, lest, he told the BBC, British Muslims be forced to choose between “the stark alternatives of culture loyalty and state loyalty."
Williams’ remarks followed a report in the London Telegraph that the British government has made official the practice of paying welfare benefits for multiple wives in polygamous marriages.
The paper reports there are an estimated 1,000 polygamous marriages in the United Kingdom, although no one is sure how accurate that number is. Polygamy is illegal in the United Kingdom. Yet the British government rewards polygamous families who had married outside the United Kingdom — not with deportation to countries that recognize polygamy, which would make sense — but with extra welfare payments for extra wives.
Great Britain prides itself in its multiculturalism and inclusion. But when the British government subsidizes polygamy and the Anglican leader promotes Sharia, they risk conferring upon extremist Muslim men special status, while relegating Muslim women to second-class status.
Western democracies function because all citizens are deemed to be equal. Polygamy is inherently unequal for women. Period. Yet in the name of tolerance, in a bid to make sure they will not be seen as Islamophobic, they enable discrimination.... ..more...
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Current time is 08:52 pm | |
|
|
|
|
