Article

2006-03-20 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2006-03-20 05:41|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 More of the "tipping point" effect, perhaps?

Posted by Mike 2006-03-20 06:39|| 2006-03-20 06:39|| Front Page Top

#2 Jihad and Crusade are the same. What tainted the noble intentioned Crusade 1000 years ago is what taints Jihad today. Basically, it's the criminals that are doing the fighting. 1000 years ago europeon prisons were opened for bodies to fight for the cause. Today, it's the Arabs turn. Many Arabs who have naturally championed Jihad have also been disgusted at the indiscriminant slaughter by Zaquawi and crew.

Posted by Slolumble Hupert7516 2006-03-20 07:15|| 2006-03-20 07:15|| Front Page Top

#3 It's not the Arabs turn. They have been doing this for the last 1400 years non-stop.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-20 07:26|| 2006-03-20 07:26|| Front Page Top

#4 Because of the Crusades the idea and ideal of Freedom exists in a large part of the world and not a Dark Age. But Europe has a short memory and too many selfish post modern jerks without a clue about what is truly evil.

Posted by Duh! 2006-03-20 07:45|| 2006-03-20 07:45|| Front Page Top

#5 I am enjoying watching the Catholic Church slowly square off against Islam, in contrast to the ankle grabbing of the English church and emotionalism of the US Evangelical churches. I can just see someone in the "Strategic Opportunities" office, or whatever, at the Vatican chuckling when Iran proposed revisiting the history of the Holocaust. "Thanks! We have been meaning to revisit a little history ourselves". By choosing the crusades, the church is basically building much more powerful case against Islam than the US. We in the US act like our cultures have been at war since 1979, and the Catholic Church is now saying Islam has been a menace for 1000 years. There are still a lot of good Catholics in Europe, maybe the Church will be the institution that finally brings them to face the enemy.

Posted by Beau">Beau 2006-03-20 09:45|| 2006-03-20 09:45|| Front Page Top

#6 There are still a lot of good Catholics in Europe, maybe the Church will be the institution that finally brings them to face the enemy.
Posted by: Beau 2006-03-20 09:45

Excellent analysis. Lets hope.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-03-20 09:52|| 2006-03-20 09:52|| Front Page Top

#7 There are still a lot of good Catholics in Europe, maybe the Church will be the institution that finally brings them to face the enemy.

More likely first battlefront will be in Africa. Fastest growing christian region, and on Islam's Bloody Border.

Posted by Steve">Steve 2006-03-20 11:48|| 2006-03-20 11:48|| Front Page Top

#8 Also since that's where the Grail is still rumored to be.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-03-20 11:53|| 2006-03-20 11:53|| Front Page Top

#9 The Church should come right out and say it. The Crusades were a counter-attack against Islam after the Islamic horde conquered Spain and started moving into Turkey and the Balkans.

The only regret they should have about the crusades is they didn't plan it out better. Sweeping the Muslims out of Europe first, and then across North Africa and then into the Holy Land last. The effect would have opened up far more trade and given more staying power to the enterprise. Instead they went for the gold and had minimal lasting effect except angering the Muslims.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-03-20 12:06|| 2006-03-20 12:06|| Front Page Top

#10 Why don't we talk about non-Moslems in a Moslem majority country. The kind of s**t they have to put up with. I submitted a thread, not yet up, about an Afghan man who converted to Christianity from Islam and the (I elieve) "aroused" procecutor is seeking the death penalty. "Allah Akhbar, baby. Allah Akhbar"

Posted by BigEd 2006-03-20 12:22|| 2006-03-20 12:22|| Front Page Top

#11 All of the Crusades? What about the Fourth, which conquered the (Christian) Byzantine Empire? Thanks to that episode, the Turks were eventually able to prevail in the Balkans.

Posted by pagan infidel 2006-03-20 12:39|| 2006-03-20 12:39|| Front Page Top

#12 Jihad and Crusade are the same. What tainted the noble intentioned Crusade 1000 years ago is what taints Jihad today.

Sorry but Jihad and Crusade are NOT the same

1) Crusades are a reaction against centurie"s of continual agressions by Islam. Jihad was and is a war of agresion even if Muslims ever have played the victim. (Remember that picture the day after 9/11 where a womabn brandished a sign "Strop terrorism against Muslims?)

2) Jihad has ever been intended as something finacially rewarding for Muslims. As a proof review the articles in Koran and Haddths who deal with teh sharing of booty and captives.

By contrast the financial incentuive is conspicusously absent from the callsto crusades. Inn fact most crusaders were well established and going to crusades was a sure way to become poorer (liberation of serfs by empoverished lords was one of the consequence of crusades).

3) Islam has at a diabolic mechanism: first it deprives the poors of sex through poligamy. Meaning that if you are poor you are going to die completely (ie wiothout descendency). So Jihad is teh only hope for sex (in afterlife if things go badly, with captives if you were victorious).

Crusaders had not that very special motivation.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-03-20 13:04|| 2006-03-20 13:04|| Front Page Top

#13 About the only thing I disagree with Rumsfeld was when he cancelled the Crusader artillery system.

Well I guess I understand his reasons, but it would have been sooo satisfying to see a big honkin' cannon named Crusader rumbling thru the desert on its way to Bagdad.

Would've drove some folks wild...

Posted by kelly 2006-03-20 15:34|| 2006-03-20 15:34|| Front Page Top

#14 jihad can be either offensive or defensive. Crusades in Israel could be perceived as defenseive,as the muslims had taken the land - however they had taken it from the (Greek) Roman empire and the crusaders did NOT hand it back to them. In fact in the 4 crusade they took Constantinople itself.

Some crusaders did quite well in establishing feudal kingdoms in the levant. Many lost money, but that was hardly the goal. And of course the Venetians and Genoans often did quite well.

And the crusades were also accompanied by many atrocities. I will mention again the Jerusalem massacre. Some will say that was simply stand op proc in that era - which just shows that the crusaders treated Holy Jerusalem as just any other city. And, I think, that ANY army from that era is questionable for honoring today.

And of course there were plenty of atrocities committed against Jews and Orthodox Christians on the way TO the Levant.

And its true that in the 11th century the Muslim world was more advanced than the west. But of course the same could be said for Greek Byzantium, as well, so thats not such a big deal.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-03-20 16:14|| 2006-03-20 16:14|| Front Page Top

#15 Much of the goal of crusades from the knights point of view was to get land.

Much of the goal of the crusades from the various kings point of view, was to get the able-bodied an unlanded soldiers busy fighting elsewhere.

Doesn't change the fact that it was a counter-attack. And the 4th Crusade didn't intend to go after Constantinople, blame Venice for that.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-03-20 17:52|| 2006-03-20 17:52|| Front Page Top

#16 Much to my own surprise, all Crusades aside, I applaud Pope Benedict's demand for reciprocity by Islam when it comes to freedom of religion. This one single issue may well lead to a significant tipping point in the perception of Islam by the outside world.

Islam must be read the riot act when it comes to cultural dominance. If it cannot abide the presence of other religions, then there is no reason for other countries that have freedom of religion to be obliged to allow the practice of Islam. The Muslim quest for dominance must eventually be reinterpreted as representing a form of political ideology.

Once this critical change in perception has occurred, only then will this world go about securing itself from the threat that is Islam. I hope the Pope maintains an increasingly vocal position with respect to this. His bully pulpit is one of the few that carries sufficient weight whereby the attention of world leaders can be gotten and held.

Posted by Zenster 2006-03-20 18:47|| 2006-03-20 18:47|| Front Page Top

#17 Well, there was the small matter of the Invasion of Spain and France in the 8th century and the attack on Rome in the 9th. That it took 300 years for the west to decide, after repeated invasions, to hit back, is about par for the course.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-03-20 18:51|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-03-20 18:51|| Front Page Top

#18 Rome had been the subject of sackings since the 5th century -- that's why the Roman emperors moved to Ravenna before finally settling in Byzantium. There was nothing new in Islam's sack of Rome as well. It was the rest of their behaviour that triggered a response.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-20 19:03|| 2006-03-20 19:03|| Front Page Top

11:29 Thinemp Whimble2412
00:00 JosephMendiola
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:36 Zhang Fei
23:31 rjschwarz
23:31 JAB
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:19 Old Patriot
23:19 Frank G
23:16 Frank G
23:13 Frank G
23:11 Frank G
23:10 RWV
23:08 CrazyFool
22:45 macofromoc
22:38 3dc
22:26 Grunter
22:24 Matt
22:24 Allan Hu Akbar
22:21 Jogum Spailet6739
22:18 gromgoru
22:15 gromgoru