August 11, 2013
The Crusades Reconsidered
By Mike Konrad

One of the idiocies passed off for decades among Western historians is bemoaning the Crusades as evil. The Islamic world -- the Ummah -- has disseminated this imaginary charge against the West, and like fools, we have absorbed Arab lies and taken the blame to heart. But the most superficial reading of Western history should put that canard to rest.

Shortly before he died in June 632 AD, Mohammed ordered Muslims to prepare to wage war against the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

Upon his death, Mohammed's successor, Abu Bakr, planned to fulfill those instructions. Plans were also made to conquer Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia.

This vainglorious troop of bandits should have been easily dispatched,

However. Persia and Byzantine Rome had just come out of a savagely vicious war which ended in 628 AD. Emperor Heraclius had finally imposed the total defeat over Persia that had eluded the earlier Roman Republic and the Caesars -- but Byzantine Rome, though victorious, was severely mauled. Persia was reduced to a state of anarchy; and forced to pay indemnities to Constantinople.

The Persian and Eastern Roman empires were attacked almost simultaneously around 633 AD, while both were still licking their wounds. So frightening were the Islamic advances that these former blood enemies made a sadly futile alliance. By 644, Persia fell anyway.

By 634 AD, Byzantine Palestine and Syria were being attacked. The Battle of Yarmouk in August 636 AD would see Eastern Roman forces beaten. Emperor Heraclius, the victorious warrior, a mere 8 years earlier, would have to sneak out back to Constantinople in a boat.

Zitat

---

Farewell, a long farewell to Syria, my fair province. Thou art an infidel's (enemy's) now. Peace be with you, O' Syria -- what a beautiful land you will be for the enemy hands -- Emperor Heraclius, after the defeat at Yarmouk.

---

Roman-held Jerusalem was besieged in November 636 AD, and surrendered by the following April.

By 674 AD, the Muslims had taken Egypt and much of Anatolian Turkey, and were besieging Constantinople. The Byzantine Romans, unlike the Persians, still had some fight left and managed to lift the siege using Greek fire, a fearsome weapon similar to a flamethrower.

By 709 AD, all of Christian North Africa had fallen to Islam. Though it took the Muslims centuries, eventually all of Christianity was eliminated in the Maghreb.

In 711 AD, the Muslims invaded Spain, again taking advantage of weakness caused by internecine wars. It would be 781 years before Spain would be free. Among Islamic Andalusia's contributions to civilization were the demanded tribute of 100 white virgins every year to staff their harems. Every other contribution was plagiarized from other civilizations the Muslims had plundered.

By 732, the Muslims had advanced to central France, where they were finally repelled by Franks at the battle of Tours. Western Europe had been temporarily spared.

Sicily fell under Islamic rule for almost two centuries, until finally liberated by Norman Franks around 1091 AD.
According to tradition, Malta fell to Islam in 870 AD. Islam's contribution's to local culture was piracy. Malta became a staging point for predatory raids on Southern Europe.

After two centuries, Malta was finally retaken in 1091 AD.

Later on, historians would blame the Dark Ages on the Germanic Tribes, but the Goths and Vikings readily Christianized and embraced the higher civilization of the lands they conquered. The reality is that Islamic raiding is what produced the Dark Ages. Trade and the economy collapsed under the Muslim threat, plunging Europe into stagnation.

In 1095, after centuries of Muslim aggression, Pope Urban II finally had enough, and called Christians to war. He did so after the Byzantine Empire, now broken away from Roman Catholicism, appealed for fraternal help from the Western Christians to save them from Islam. After over 4 centuries of war with Islam, the Byzantines were on the verge of collapse. Most of Spain was still under Islamic tyranny. Malta and Sicily had only been recently freed.



One may condemn the atrocities of the Crusaders, but what infuriates the objective student of history is that the far greater crimes of Islam are ignored.

The Crusades was Christendom finally fighting back, not always honorably, but against a foe which had plunged Europe into darkness for centuries.

Instead we allowed our students to be brainwashed, and force fed an Islamic line that we have to feel guilty. The Muslims invaded Southern Europe, yet somehow we Westerners are labeled the imperialists.

Islamic aggression did not end with the Crusades.

The reason Columbus headed West was because the Muslims had blocked all trade routes to the East. Yet, we are never told this.

Read more

Quote: Rev wrote in post #1

---

August 11, 2013
The Crusades Reconsidered
By Mike Konrad



One may condemn the atrocities of the Crusaders, but what infuriates the objective student of history is that the far greater crimes of Islam are ignored.

The Crusades was Christendom finally fighting back, not always honorably, but against a foe which had plunged Europe into darkness for centuries.

Instead we allowed our students to be brainwashed, and force fed an Islamic line that we have to feel guilty. The Muslims invaded Southern Europe, yet somehow we Westerners are labeled the imperialists.

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #3

---

False premise to begin with. I remember the Crusades being glorified as a child,and the Muslims (rightly so) being depicted as evil barbarians. Being a child,nobody really went into the details,but it was clearly obvious to even children who started the wars.

As for the Catholic atrocities versus the Muslim atrocities goes, atrocity is a basic part of war and why war should be avoided if at all possible.

BUT......,it is the Christians that claim to follow the "Prince of Peace" and who make claims about being peaceful followers of this Prince who follow his gentle ways,NOT the Muslims. They have never pretended to be anything other than the brutal bastards they are. Nor have they denied being a religion of war. Yeah,they had to back off on bragging about that whole "religion of war" thing for several hundred years while trying to recover from the last "Muslims versus Christians" games,but NOTHING changed about their religious goal of conquest and conversion at sword point.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #5

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #3

---

False premise to begin with. I remember the Crusades being glorified as a child,and the Muslims (rightly so) being depicted as evil barbarians. Being a child,nobody really went into the details,but it was clearly obvious to even children who started the wars.

As for the Catholic atrocities versus the Muslim atrocities goes, atrocity is a basic part of war and why war should be avoided if at all possible.

BUT......,it is the Christians that claim to follow the "Prince of Peace" and who make claims about being peaceful followers of this Prince who follow his gentle ways,NOT the Muslims. They have never pretended to be anything other than the brutal bastards they are. Nor have they denied being a religion of war. Yeah,they had to back off on bragging about that whole "religion of war" thing for several hundred years while trying to recover from the last "Muslims versus Christians" games,but NOTHING changed about their religious goal of conquest and conversion at sword point.

---

You are full of shit right from your hearsay nonsense about the Crusades, which can only be proven if we were sitting next to you in your low rent school, to the use of "Prince of Peace" which is a term the Jews use to refer to King Hezekiah....in the Hebrew Bible.

---

@Rev

Thanks for the post.

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #6

---

Eat shit and die,you pompous bastard. To prove your total freaking ignorance,I grew up in a fundie Christian church and had two uncles that were fundie preachers,and Christ was refereed to as the "prince of peace" as often as he was Jesus. Often in the same sentence.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #8

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #6

---

Eat shit and die,you pompous bastard. To prove your total freaking ignorance,I grew up in a fundie Christian church and had two uncles that were fundie preachers,and Christ was refereed to as the "prince of peace" as often as he was Jesus. Often in the same sentence.

---

Once again you are injecting some more hearsay to argue something even though the opposite is generally accepted in religious circles. Just because a hand full of churches play with snakes and strychnine doesn't mean that is the generally accepted practice at 99.9% of Christian churches.

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #10

---

He's not Catholic...but I am. And you're still wrong

---

Maybe this would be a good candidate for the "Clean Debate" forum!!

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #3

---

[quote=Rev|p52110]
BUT......,it is the Christians that claim to follow the "Prince of Peace" and who make claims about being peaceful followers of this Prince who follow his gentle ways,NOT the Muslims. They have never pretended to be anything other than the brutal bastards they are. Nor have they denied being a religion of war. Yeah,they had to back off on bragging about that whole "religion of war" thing for several hundred years while trying to recover from the last "Muslims versus Christians" games,but NOTHING changed about their religious goal of conquest and conversion at sword point.

---

"You are correct that Islam's goal is conquest at the point of a sword, but you are incorrect that muslems never seek to deceive by claiming they are a 'religion of peace'. They have and do and continue to do so. God help the westerner who remains ignorant of all of this."

And what perecentage of Americans do you think fall into this ignorance category? I'd say well over half. And those who are not ignorant are bullied as if they were the problem.