Ok, I don't think I saw a thread for this, so here it goes.

Do you belive the Crusades were justified? I'm interested in hearing other people's responses.

Boy, when you ask a question...

It really depends on how you define "justified", and, for that matter, how you define "crusade".

The first Crusade was really a product of Byzantine fear and the need of the Roman Catholic church to reassert its authority (at the time that Urban II was preaching the crusade, he actually wasn't allowed back in Rome). The Byzantine empire was being threatened by the Seljuk Turks (if I recall correctly), and a plea from the emperor resulted in a massive European response. After conquering Jerusalem, several Crusader kingdoms were established.

Both the second and third Crusades were abortive attempts at assisting the Crusader kingdoms. By then, however, the Muslims had adapted to the European form of warfare, and neither campaign went terribly well. After the third Crusade, the Crusader kingdoms were destroyed, and the area returned to Muslim hands.

The fourth Crusade didn't even make it to the Holy Land, and ended up knocking over Constantinople. After that, any time a war has any religious connotations, the word "Crusade" gets thrown around.

Were they justified...for the most part, I would have to say "yes", but not on a religious grounds. The first Crusade was an attempt to bolster the Byzantine Empire that had unexpected results, and the next two were attempts to bolster the new European kingdoms established there. Politically, they all make sense.

On a religious note, they were the most horrifying display of intolerance the world had seen up to that point, and their consequences are still being felt today. It was during the first Crusade that anti-semitism first took on a violent characteristic, and I cannot help but think that the Middle East would be a far more pleasant place today if it hadn't been for the Crusaders militarizing the entire Islamic world against Christianity (prior to the Crusades, Islam saw Christianity and Judaism as "peoples of the book," or misguided brothers).

Best regards to all,

Robert Marks

Originally posted by Becka
Do you belive the Crusades were justified?

In short.

No.

In short NO. Do you think what Bin Laden is doing right now is right? its just as bad as the crusades.

the muslims did not use european style warfare.
there were many differences in the way they trained, how heavily they armored themselves and cavalry, etc.

the crusades left an anti-christian legacy in the mid-east. to this day the word 'crusade' gets people pissed off.

many think the crusade has not yet ended due to the fact that the West has been screwing muslims ever since the end of WWI.

on another religious note, although many muslims are angry at the West they have to respect Christians and Jews because they are 'People of the Book'.

in the Quran it states that the Christians and Jews are not ignorant, and a Muslim's best friend may be the one who says "I am a Christian"

What should be a proper justification? That some sedjuk bad@sses killed a few pilgrims in Anatolia? I pretty sure those guys also killed EVERY unprotected group of people...

Or did the crusaders try to help the Byzantines right when relations were worse than anytime before? Don't make me laugh... :rotfl:

Were the Crusades justified? Strange question. When one considers that each crusade was so different, it's nearly impossible to answer. I'd say that the First Crusade, and only the 1st was justified, and that is just the war with the Muslims, and not the monstrous attacks on the Jews and major Church figures in Germany at the same period. That was a total disgrace. The only redeeming part of that is that many Bishops in Germany spoke out against the attacks on the Jews, and even protected them personally. I remember that one German Bishop was murdered by anti-Jewish "crusaders" when he protected a Jewish family.

And yet the 1st Crusade in itself was justified. The Church took it (understandably) hard when Islamic armies took over the Holy Land, destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and taxed the Christian and Jew communities to death. The Muslims had for years been raiding the European coastline, destroying abbeys, as the Vikings were doing in the same period, and the Irish had done in the Dark Ages. The Islamic Empires were not only trying to take back Spain at the time, but they were approaching the Byzantine Empire's capital, Constantinopol, and about 10 years before Pope Urban II launched the 1st Crusade, the Emperor of Byzantium was captured by Sejuks and his army destroyed at the Battle of Manzikert. Ever since then, the new emperor, Alexius Comnenus, feared an attack, and thus sent the Pope a plea to come to his assistance. The Europeans, the Christian ones anyway, did see Byzantium as necessary, as when it fell, the Christians of the East were put in very serious danger indeed. Of course, by the time the crusaders were finally at Constantinopol, Alexius had gotten over his fears, and promptly slammed the doors on the crusaders, who promptly opened them up again. Though the Crusaders were very brutal in their attacks, they got the job done. I'd say yes, there were many reasons as to why the First Crusades were justified.

The Second Crusade was also somewhat justified. The Kurdish armies around had taken Edessa and were moving in on Antioch, and so to protect the Holy Land and the Byzantines once more, they launched a crusade more brutal and terrible than the first, and lost it. The 3rd Crusade was simply a continuation of the 2nd, and it took back little land. The truly unjustifiable crusade was Venice's 4th Crusade, which was not really one supported by the Church, and was instead ordered by the blind Doge of Venice, Henricus Dondalo. It was announced at a masquerade ball, and I have the impression that everyone was a bit tipsy that evening, and the Doge popped in, with a Crusader's cross on his skull-cap, ordering a new crusade. Of course, they never got past Constantinopol, which they entered, and sacked, looting most of the Orthodox Churches (including the great Hagia Sophia) there, and generally acting as horrendous as possible. Actually, as soon as they returned to Venice with all the loot (which they decorated the City with) the Pope excommunicated every one of them, including the horrified Dondalo himself. :goodjob: your Holiness!

I'll join the 'no' club right here.
But it is not as if there haven't been any voices for religious and/or ethnic tolerance even in the middle ages. With the Roman ideals scattered in ancient literature, how couldn't there have been? So, in medieval literature, we do indeed find fragments that appear so very modern to us, that it surprises to find these were written around 1200. I'm talking about Wolfram von Eschenbach. His hero Gachmuret in "Parzival" for example, married a dark-skinned muslim queen and had a son with her. This son is later on described as good and just.
But the most interesting thing is his work "Willehalm", which is about the crusades, and describes them as horribly useless bloodshed, and in one certain part of it, Wolfram describes all people, also non-christian, as children of God, and calls for tolerance between them, by pointing out that Adam and Eve, Moses, the three Kings and all these people weren't Christian either, but they had Gods love and blessing.
Thus, you can look into these times as well, and find hundreds of arguments against the crusades.
As for that, I think that any bloodshed in the name of anything or anybody is definately not justified.

A good question to ask would be where did the religious intolerance lie? There was just as much of it with the Muslims as with the Christians.

Don't forget the infamous Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars in the south of France. Now that one was unjustified.

As much or not as any war of REconquest. No less and maybe a tiny bit more justified (still only slightly) than the the Moslem conquest of these areas a few centuries earlier.

Lefty:But the crusades were no REconquest. If the byzantines had reconquered the area it would have been a very different issue. Thus, the crusades were as "justified" as the earlier arabian conquest: i.e.: not!
One note though: At least the muslims treated the inhabitants of conquered Jerusalem nicer...

It is hard to justify a war host leaving devastation all the way from Europe;and then arriving in the middle east to devestate that............and then sort of doing it twelve more times over the next couple of centurys. All in the name of god of course!
[dance] :beer: [dance]

All I have to say, Rowan is-- Deus le Vault. :D

The first three Crusades were very much justified, but it did go downhill from there.

Originally posted by History Guy
All I have to say, Rowan is-- Deus le Vault. :D
Pardonne monseur,non parlez Franceis
[dance] :beer: [dance]

Originally posted by Nahuixtelotzin
the crusades were no REconquest. If the byzantines had reconquered the area it would have been a very different issue. ...
The Byzantines had called for the first cruade and were allied with it. Most of the various other parties also veiwed themselves as some sort of successor to the to the Roman Empire.

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola

The Byzantines had called for the first cruade and were allied with it. Most of the various other parties also veiwed themselves as some sort of successor to the to the Roman Empire.

..., and they almost puked on how the "peasant pre-crusade" worked and saw themselves extremely betrayed. No crusade was meant to help Constantinople.
Western knights might have seen themselves in the light of the roman empire, neglecting the fact that most what their ancestors did was destrying that very empire...
The reasons given for the crusades was thin, the arabic rule was not at all terrible for the region, nor in general for pilgrims. And the reestablishment of the Roman Empire with a mare nostrum was never not even the slightest intention, it was all particularistic interests.

The Byzantines didn't call for a crusade: Alexius I had asked pope Urban II for help recruting troops in Europe. What he didn't expect were the giantic armies that actually came. I demanded an othe of loyalty from all the knights before helping them get over the Bosporus.

After giving some thought to the question, my opinion is: in the form the Crusades were in, no. However, the muslims were also wrong, if not more so, in taking Palestine by force in the first place.

Here's the deal: I don't think ANY war with the sole purpose of taking Jerusalem is justified. Being Christian myself, I don't think there's really any such thing as a "Holy Land" or a "holy city". You can worship God anywhere. No one should be killing anybody over their "right" to worship specifically from Jerusalem.


However, there would be circumstances (which, in reality, may have actually existed) that would justify the Crusades: first, if the area was being used to stage attacks on the West. In that case it is very much justified. Just like how the U.S. is justified in invading Afghanistan, or India is justified in invading Pakistan if they don't stop staging attacks on Kashmir.

The second circumstance is if religious freedom is being squashed, or some other form of harsh persecution existed. That's what justified the American Civil War, and in large part WW2. If peaceful people were being jailed & killed for practicing their religion, then that must be stopped. Forcibly, if necessary. Thus the Crusades would be justified. Having read the Koran myself, and knowing what goes on in fundamentalist Islamic countries today (e.g. Morocco: you practice Christianity, you die), this may very likely have been the case. There's a big difference between fighting for religious freedom and "practicing religion" by killing disbelievers. Do the latter, you're a hypocrite.


So why do I think the Crusades were probably not justified in their form? Because I think their intended goal was to make Jerusalem, the "holy city," Christian, and that's wrong. You fight to liberate Jerusalem, fight to stop the Islamic jihad, but don't fight out of your own "Christian jihad" to convert Jerusalem. That's where you cross the line.

P.S. About Crusaders destroying the Orthodox Cathedrals in Constantinople: the Muslims had converted them into mosques. Not a minor detail. Under the circumstances, I think destroying them was the right thing to do. It would be wrong if they were ALWAYS mosques or ALWAYS churches, but they weren't.

tetley, just some facts:
a) The Holy Land was not a place from which "the west" was attacked. In fact, those muslims didn't care at all about the western church, they had Constantinople as their traditional enemy.
b) don't confuse medieval islam with modern fundamentalism, even less than ONLY seeing the fundamentalists among nowadays muslims. Most probable pilgrims weren't much liked, seldjuk turks attacked them, but after all they were strangers and don't even think what would have happened to muslim pilgrims in a christian country... BTW: When Saladin expelled the Crusaders he established free passage to the christian holy places for pilgrims. He even solved the struggles among the christians themselves about the "birth church" introducing the system of different parts in the church compley for the different christian beliefs, as still nowadays practiced. Arabian Countries with former christian population still have much more christians as for example Spain has muslims, which was partially an islamic country. They were all expelled or killed, right when the Spanish "reconquered" the peninsula
c) Constantinople was still christian by then, so christians destroyed christian churches. And btw: The Spanish converted all mosques into churches, whereas in Constantinople still minor churches were allowed to remain. I mean, destroying can't be the option, it's far more civilized at least to maintain a cultural building in its outer form by changing their use, not like destroying the Buddha-Statues...

re: b) "modern fundamentalism" is an oxymoron. The whole point of fundamentalism is to remain true to the original medieval Islam. The Koran very specifically says to "seize and kill" disbelievers (Surah 4:89), it very specifically says not to make friends with Christians and Jews. Fundamental Islam teaches to give people the chance to turn to Allah, and if they don't, kill them. I can cite specific references, if necessary. This was the prevailing mentality among muslims as it spread through the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain, and it's little wonder why other religions had "low tolerance" for them. Same with fundamental Islam today--for some strange reason, something about blowing people up seems to promote religious intolerance of Islam. which leads to...

re: a) The Byzantines sure perceived a threat, and it probably wasn't because they were just delusional. Justified or not, had the Crusades not served as a preemptive strike, muslims no doubt would have invaded from that direction as well. They're not innocent. How often do we keep saying how wrong the Crusades were and completely gloss over the fact that muslims overran North Africa and invaded Spain in their "crusade"?

re: c) The earlier poster said the cathedrals were destroyed in the Fourth Crusade, which was after the cathedrals were converted to mosques.


Were the Crusades justified? That's debatable. But the Islam Crusades most definitely were not. You never hear about that part. They were GOING to be met with force sooner or later, in one form or another. You don't just go attacking everybody and then complain how wrong it is when they actually attack you back. And that's precisely what the Crusades were.

To suggest that the Crusades were purely about religion and protecting the safety and security of Christian pilgrims in the 'Holy Land' is misleading and incomplete. The alleged abuse of pilgrims was used by the crusaders as a justification, but it seems a bit trifling compared to the religous intolerance that was such a common feature of Medieval Europe.

It has been asserted with justification that the reasons for the crusades were threefold: God, Gold and Glory. Many Crusaders were landless knights and others bent on self-enrichment, and bent on good old fashioned bloodlust. They were actively encouraged by the church and state in going on crusade, not only for religious reasons, but to get them away from Europe, which was rife in intrigues and factionalism, a common state of affairs in feudal Europe. Many crusaders were the second and third sons of the gentry, and they went on crusade for the purpose of securing wealth and property. Their fiefdoms in effect became the crusader states.

Bravo Tetley. In some ways that is. I still disagree about your points on the idea of taking Jerusalem was wrong, and that Orthodox churches in Constantinopol were destroyed as mosques. Byzantium fell in 1453, a good 200 years after Dandolo sacked the city.

First post yey.

Yes they were justified. Who exactly were we invading? My country of Spain was ruled by Muslims for hundreds of years by force, I'm not about to apologise for the reconquista of my own lands am I. Muslims occupied 2/3 of Christian lands and we took some back; boo hoo. The worst we did was kill around 30,000 Jews in Jerusalem compared to endless Arab onslaught. Saladin repelled us so we never went for the Arabs heart. I hate how the media always makes Westerners feel apologetic of their past, even thousands of years ago. Tell some Mongolians to feel bad for their actions, see if they care, it was a long long time ago. Only the issue of the crusades is still relevant now since the Muslims still havn't been fully repayed for the favors they did us: Albania is majorly Muslim by the complete brute force to the natives and the Orthodox heartland of Constantinople is Istanbul, and for a long period a Muslim capital.

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.

The crusades were oly 20 years of actual military campaigns. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250).

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

Don't say that theyre not peaceful, or they'll kill you to prove you wrong. They blow thousands of us up and if you say something you're racist, one Danish guy draws a cartoon and it's acceptable to cheer death to Europe...
okiii :crazyeye:

Sorry to go on, I actualy don't have much of a problem with Islam, but it isn't the Muslims that keep making us feel bad about crap we havn't done, this is a race masking behind past sympathy, I won't say which. I'm a creationist BTW so I don't hate any race specificaly, I thought I'd mention that now that I mentioned race.

First post yey.

I'm a creationist BTW so I don't hate any race specificaly, I thought I'd mention that now that I mentioned race.

Wow, a first post resurrecting a 6 years old thread?

Wellcome, anyway. But ...a spanish creationist?! That blight has crossed the Atlantic already? Damn, it's just one nearly inexistent border away! :run:

The Crusades were indeed justified. The Islamic empires were on the verge of conquering Europe and religion was the only thing that could unify Europe for a counter-attack.

Wow, talk about thread necromancy! I think six years has to be a record. :clap::goodjob:

Brutal attempt at creating a double account "Aryann". You can do better than this...

The Crusades were indeed justified. The Islamic empires were on the verge of conquering Europe and religion was the only thing that could unify Europe for a counter-attack.

You...are so stupid and naive if you really think that. Basically saying, using YOUR explanation I can say that A Jihad was justified as the Crusades was a threat to Muslim empires and they needed to deal with it quickly but securing bases in Europe to scare them

Haha....go read some history, its like you never even bother to learn about both sides and the true Political meaning of it

You...are so stupid and naive if you really think that.

Islam conquers Spain, Greece and parts of Italy, so Europe defending themselves by initiating a counter-attack isn't justified?

Basically saying, using YOUR explanation I can say that A Jihad was justified as the Crusades was a threat to Muslim empires and they needed to deal with it quickly but securing bases in Europe to scare them

They weren't just a simple threat like Iran to Israel, they were quite dogmatic in controlling Europe. A Jihad would've been completely justified if the circumstances were reversed, if Christians were conquering parts of North Africa and Anatolia.

Let me just clear this up: was the Umayyad Caliphate conquering Spain justified at all?

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

You're reading this out of context. Fundamentalists use it to justify all violence towards non-believers but other parts of the Qur'an say that anyone who kills in the name of Islam is not a true Muslim.

The contemporary religious belief was that Islam was destined to rule the world because it was God's empire. Philosophers showed that it was meant to be ruled through intelligence, not brutal conquest.

Wow, a first post resurrecting a 6 years old thread?

Wellcome, anyway. But ...a spanish creationist?! That blight has crossed the Atlantic already? Damn, it's just one nearly inexistent border away! :run:

Actually, I'm withdrawing that "welcome". I believe jonatas is right...

Islam conquers Spain, Greece and parts of Italy, so Europe defending themselves by initiating a counter-attack isn't justified?



They weren't just a simple threat like Iran to Israel, they were quite dogmatic in controlling Europe. A Jihad would've been completely justified if the circumstances were reversed, if Christians were conquering parts of North Africa and Anatolia.

Let me just clear this up: was the Umayyad Caliphate conquering Spain justified at all?

The Ottomans conquering Greece is the same as England attacking France, its just war for territorial gains. The idea of a Crusade was merely a disguise as a reason to attack nations. They say they were here to free the Holy Land, More like kill the Infedels and dig deep into the rich trade of Palestine.

Its nothing more but a more "merciful" reason to bring war with with the "infedels" to a popular front, win troops and money and look in a holy righteous position when its all just a stupid act.

I wont mind if they attack the Arabs under the idea that they were going to try stop the Expansion or fight for terrioty and resources. It was the Medieval error, it was a normal thing for nations to attack other states for that.

But to disguise under the pretense of the will of God? Thats just sad. Both a Crusade and a Jihad is stupid.

Islam conquers Spain, Greece and parts of Italy, so Europe defending themselves by initiating a counter-attack isn't justified?

They weren't just a simple threat like Iran to Israel, they were quite dogmatic in controlling Europe. A Jihad would've been completely justified if the circumstances were reversed, if Christians were conquering parts of North Africa and Anatolia.

Let me just clear this up: was the Umayyad Caliphate conquering Spain justified at all?

That's like saying: "that guy killed my friend. It is therefore justified to kill him and his family".

The reasons behind the 7th century Jihads and the 11th century Crusades are complex. It's not just evil Muslims trying to convert all of Europe" or evil Christians coming to slaughter Muslims. In both wars, conquest for land, resources, power, even to preserve the peace within the aggressors' own societies, are all important. Religion is used as an excuse in both cases.

You're reading this out of context. Fundamentalists use it to justify all violence towards non-believers but other parts of the Qur'an say that anyone who kills in the name of Islam is not a true Muslim.

The contemporary religious belief was that Islam was destined to rule the world because it was God's empire. Philosophers showed that it was meant to be ruled through intelligence, not brutal conquest.

Christians of the 19th century believed it is their divine duty to rule over the backward, uncivilised, wild, dark-skinned, pagan peoples of Asia, Australia and Africa. Philosophers showed that it was meant to be ruled through intelligence, not brutal conquest, yet millions were slain in the colonial wars.

Religion, sadly, have too often been used as an excuse to oppress or slaughter others.

Sorry to go on, I actualy don't have much of a problem with Islam, but it isn't the Muslims that keep making us feel bad about crap we havn't done, this is a race masking behind past sympathy, I won't say which. I'm a creationist BTW so I don't hate any race specificaly, I thought I'd mention that now that I mentioned race.

Well, I don't think anyone should really feel good about killing, which is what war really is when it comes down to the basics.

Yes, crusades were justified in that historical context.

Yes, crusades were justified in that historical context.

I would say they are not justified but are perfectly within their historical context, and hence should not be considered the epitome of evil as they are by some folks in our times.

The Ottomans conquering Greece is the same as England attacking France, its just war for territorial gains. The idea of a Crusade was merely a disguise as a reason to attack nations. They say they were here to free the Holy Land, More like kill the Infedels and dig deep into the rich trade of Palestine.

The Ottomans didn't exist until after the Crusades were over. Regardless: so then they're just as justified as all of the Muslim conquests? It's not "territorial gains" so much as it is "territorial reclaiming."

Its nothing more but a more "merciful" reason to bring war with with the "infedels" to a popular front, win troops and money and look in a holy righteous position when its all just a stupid act.

So again, equally justified as all of the Muslim conquests.

I wont mind if they attack the Arabs under the idea that they were going to try stop the Expansion or fight for terrioty and resources. It was the Medieval error, it was a normal thing for nations to attack other states for that.

The only thing that could unify all of Europe was religion. So strategically it was brilliant. Are you really bugged out because it was called a "holy war" even though it was really just a military counter-strike?

That's like saying: "that guy killed my friend. It is therefore justified to kill him and his family".

No, that's like saying "that guy killed my friend and is about to kill my family. It is therefore justified to kill him to prevent my family from dying."

The reasons behind the 7th century Jihads and the 11th century Crusades are complex. It's not just evil Muslims trying to convert all of Europe" or evil Christians coming to slaughter Muslims. In both wars, conquest for land, resources, power, even to preserve the peace within the aggressors' own societies, are all important. Religion is used as an excuse in both cases.

Exactly. Since the First Crusade was fundamentally called to preserve Constantinople from Muslim conquest, it's hardly unjustified.

In short it is impossible to evealuate the morality of the crusades haveing a modern viewpoint.

The Ottomans didn't exist until after the Crusades were over. Regardless: so then they're just as justified as all of the Muslim conquests? It's not "territorial gains" so much as it is "territorial reclaiming."

You poor naive full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_of_Varna
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusade_of_Nicopolis&redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade
All crusades intiated by the Pope. And this is without talking about the Holy League

Also, the holy land was populated by Arabs and Muslims of every type having near no connection with Europe aside from Religious shrines. Even if they did convert the populace, Muslim people, families, lives not live there. And some how, the Christans have the right to "reclaim" the land populated by these people, kill, kick or convert the lot.

So again, equally justified as all of the Muslim conquests.



The only thing that could unify all of Europe was religion. So strategically it was brilliant. Are you really bugged out because it was called a "holy war" even though it was really just a military counter-strike?

Oh yes, god wrote in Holy Scripture that Jerusalem MUST be in Christian and allowed them to attack every damn thing in its way.

No, that's like saying "that guy killed my friend and is about to kill my family. It is therefore justified to kill him to prevent my family from dying."

Wow...it makes SOOOO much more sense

I can still understand the first three Crusades

The first one was a counter-attack to get back lost lands. (However instead of giving back the lands to the rightful owner they took it and set up their own states)
The second and third was to try and push back the Muslims (Which ended in failure cause the crusaders were more engross with their own personal wants then to free Jerusalem)
But the next few were just dumb

The 4th one is the "Greatest Scandal of Christemdom" by attacking a fellow christian with gold in mind

The 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ones were basically ran on nothing but "religious devotion" Attacking not only the Holy land but Tunisia and Egypt

Exactly. Since the First Crusade was fundamentally called to preserve Constantinople from Muslim conquest, it's hardly unjustified.

Much like the Fourth Crusade was fundamentally called to preserve Constantinople from Muslim conquest by attacking it.

Sure they were forced to attack there because they owe debt to Venice, im sure they felt sorry while looting the city.

You poor naive full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_of_Varna
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...is&redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade

Those aren't considered part of "the Crusades," even if called such. The Crusades ended after Edward I returned to England in 1272.

Also, the holy land was populated by Arabs and Muslims of every type having near no connection with Europe aside from Religious shrines. Even if they did convert the populace, Muslim people, families, lives not live there. And some how, the Christans have the right to "reclaim" the land populated by these people, kill, kick or convert the lot.

They didn't have that right. I don't claim they did. I only claim that the declaration of war against the Muslim empires (addendum to avoid future confusion: in the first four Crusades) was justified because they were on the verge of conquering Europe.

Oh yes, god wrote in Holy Scripture that Jerusalem MUST be in Christian and allowed them to attack every damn thing in its way.

Scripture also allows war in the circumstance that it is used to defend your people. (Luke 22:36. Romans 13:3-4)

England, France and Italy come together to fight off Moors and Seljuks advancing towards Europe. How is that NOT a Just War fundamentally, that is, not counting the specific things the Crusaders did (good or bad).

The first one was a counter-attack to get back lost lands.

It wasn't to reclaim lost land, it was to annihilate the incoming legions that are going to rape their women, desecrate their churches and holy icons, plunder their kingdoms and enslave their people.

But since you've admitted that, then you've conceded that the Crusades were, in fact, justified.

The second and third was to try and push back the Muslims (Which ended in failure cause the crusaders were more engross with their own personal wants then to free Jerusalem)

So again, we see a war whose purpose is justified but is corrupted by greedy men.

The 4th one is the "Greatest Scandal of Christemdom" by attacking a fellow christian with gold in mind

The Fourth Crusade was called to attack Egypt. It was the Crusaders, not the Pope who decided to sack Constantinople. The Pope personally disowned the Latins for doing so.

You are wrong and are simply imagineing what happened to suit your idealogical beliefs. The crusaders certainly didn't feel bad no matter how much you wanted to be. Here is a excerpt from a old history text book I have layinng aorund:
"When cthe crusaders entered the city, they went on a savage spree of looting. They stole the relics from Hagia Sophia and loaded the jewel-studded communion table onto a venetian ships. The looters set fires that burned much of the city, including libraries with pricless ancient manuscripts."

You are wrong and are simply imagineing what happened to suit your idealogical beliefs. The crusaders certainly didn't feel bad no matter how much you wanted to be.

That's not what I'm arguing, and the fact that this is your rebuttal shows that the point of my argument flew completely over your head.

It's irrelevant what the Crusaders themselves did: the Crusades were fundamentally justified by the fact that Muslim conquests were on the verge of entering mainland Europe and no counter-attack would've meant the end of Christianity and all of its kingdoms.

Justification was all relevant. They however by modern standards were not justified. You however go Christians=good Muslims=evil scary inhuman brown people.

I've heard some whinning about Muslims conquering Europe...

So I suppose it was all right when the Rome's attempted to conquer all of Europe? Though, this was before Christianity...

Was it okay Napoleon tried to conquer Europe? Though, he was a christian was he not?

If you're gonna cry over one group trying to conquer Europe then whine about the rest.

I'm not gonna try and make you all feel bad by telling you what happened by the hands of the Crusades was fiendish, even if it was. But the sheer fact is how many people ba then do you think actually dreamed of Uniting Europe... I'm guessing more then a few.

But yes, lets whine about the Muslims because they could have...

Scripture also allows war in the circumstance that it is used to defend your people. (Luke 22:36. Romans 13:3-4)

Those two passages say absolutely nothing about the circumstances under which war may be waged; in fact they're not even about war at all. Furthermore, the Catholic Church teaches that six different criteria must be met for a war to count as just; merely being waged to defend your people meets only one of these criteria.

However, this whole thing is simply a troll thread and doesn't belong in History. The question whether any event was "justified" is a moral or legal one, not a historical one.

Wow, a first post resurrecting a 6 years old thread?

Wellcome, anyway. But ...a spanish creationist?! That blight has crossed the Atlantic already? Damn, it's just one nearly inexistent border away! :run:

I was actually trying to find something on the crusades for the RFC mod and didn't use the best search words being new.

Brutal attempt at creating a double account "Aryann". You can do better than this...

I don't have another account. What do you mean??

You're reading this out of context. Fundamentalists use it to justify all violence towards non-believers but other parts of the Qur'an say that anyone who kills in the name of Islam is not a true Muslim.

The contemporary religious belief was that Islam was destined to rule the world because it was God's empire. Philosophers showed that it was meant to be ruled through intelligence, not brutal conquest.


They justify their hero Muhammed marrying a 6 year old when he was like 50 and wife beating. This just shows to me how outdated Islam is even though being created over 600 years after Christianity, whether that quote was right or not.

Actually, I'm withdrawing that "welcome". I believe jonatas is right...

So who was I in this past life?

Sorry for posting so much but I was thinking to myself how I'd only ever posted on Rhye's mod and then I remembered this so checked it out again to find all those comments of me being another account or something.

I've heard some whinning about Muslims conquering Europe...

So I suppose it was all right when the Rome's attempted to conquer all of Europe? Though, this was before Christianity...

No, it wasn't. I never supported that.

If you're gonna cry over one group trying to conquer Europe then whine about the rest.

I don't because their actions are almost universally considered wrong by today's standards. It's the Islamic conquests that are somehow the exception. Nobody has given any clear evidence for why Muslims destroying Europe is somehow acceptable but Christians counter-attacking isn't. Bizarre political correctness?

They however by modern standards were not justified. You however go Christians=good Muslims=evil scary inhuman brown people.

No, I don't. Christians committed more atrocities during the Crusades than Muslims did. However it was Muslim conquest that sparked the necessity of the Crusades.

They justify their hero Muhammed marrying a 6 year old when he was like 50 and wife beating.

Modern Muslims don't justify spousal abuse, and Muhammed married Aisha when she was six because she was financially insecure and needed a husband. They did not consummate their marriage until later.

They justify their hero Muhammed marrying a 6 year old when he was like 50 and wife beating. This just shows to me how outdated Islam is even though being created over 600 years after Christianity, whether that quote was right or not.
And that is an historical asessment of Islam?

I don't because their actions are almost universally considered wrong by today's standards. It's the Islamic conquests that are somehow the exception. Nobody has given any clear evidence for why Muslims destroying Europe is somehow acceptable but Christians counter-attacking isn't. Bizarre political correctness?


Destroy Europe?

Apperantly we have two diffrent ideas of 'Destroy'...

For me, Destroy means the complete slaughter of inhabitants in the area, in this case Europe.

Evidence from past Islam Empires in Europe show that their is no evidence of sheer slaughter of Europeans. There may be some cases but Christians can be accused of the same. In fact, in Europe the Christians can be named more guity for the death of jews and moors and other such things.

It isn't right to claim the Muslims would destroy Europe... Occupation perhaps but not destruction.

For me, Destroy means the complete slaughter of inhabitants in the area, in this case Europe.

Evidence from past Islam Empires in Europe show that their is no evidence of sheer slaughter of Europeans. There may be some cases but Christians can be accused of the same. In fact, in Europe the Christians can be named more guity for the death of jews and moors and other such things.

This is clearly not the definition I intend. Muslims at the time were more advanced scientifically and perhaps culturally but an Islamic government would re-define everything it means to be European. It would certainly entail the death of Christianity.

This is clearly not the definition I intend. Muslims at the time were more advanced scientifically and perhaps culturally but an Islamic government would re-define everything it means to be European. It would certainly entail the death of Christianity.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the death of Christianity.

Certainly a steep downhill decent but no its end. At the time muslims seemed pretty fine with the Christians, they could pay a tax to freely continue their religion but that was certainly better then an Inquisition.

As for culturally. This aspect I am less sure of but I find it hard that the entirety of Europe being changed to the 'desert' culture of the Mideast.

This is all just speculation, neither of us can be sure.

This is clearly not the definition I intend. Muslims at the time were more advanced scientifically and perhaps culturally but an Islamic government would re-define everything it means to be European. It would certainly entail the death of Christianity.

Oh darn imagine a world without christianity.

Plotinus pwned this thread and you guys are still debating...

Plotinus pwned this thread and you guys are still debating...

QFT, brother :D

Everyone has had their moment in the sun, (except for Africa not counting the north if we're honest,) every civilization has murdered and killed and invaded if the oppurtunity arises and of course it isn't right. Europeans repelled the Arabs from their lands and had a large army left over at their disposal, what civilization has ever been in that situation and not exploited it that has lived to tell the tale?

Everyone has had their moment in the sun, (except for Africa not counting the north if we're honest,) every civilization has murdered and killed and invaded if the oppurtunity arises and of course it isn't right. Europeans repelled the Arabs from their lands and had a large army left over at their disposal, what civilization has ever been in that situation and not exploited it that has lived to tell the tale?

Have you ever heard of Mali. What about Songhay, Benin, Kongo, Swahili states, Great Zimbabwe, Rozwi?

Have you ever heard of Mali. What about Songhay, Benin, Kongo, Swahili states, Great Zimbabwe, Rozwi?
They really beat the crap out classical Greece and Rome.

Have you ever heard of Mali. What about Songhay, Benin, Kongo, Swahili states, Great Zimbabwe, Rozwi?

I believe he said "except for the north," which would include Mali, Songhay, Egypt and Morocco. Though he's forgetting the Zulus in the south.

They really beat the crap out classical Greece and Rome.

I disagree, they each had their own excellencies. Greece was a pinnacle of philosophical achievements and Rome sustained a massive empire for several hundred years through several civil wars. On the other hand, Mali had an incredible economy and powerful culture.

They really beat the crap out classical Greece and Rome.

Exactly. What African empire has managed to fight its way through its own tribes and expand into the mainland? I have nothing against Africa but the more iscolated a civilization is from the mainland, the less it is "in the loop" on technology and alike. South Africans were basically iscolated for a long time like the aborigines, so what can you expect them to do?

Exactly. What African empire has managed to fight its way through its own tribes and expand into the mainland? I have nothing against Africa but the more iscolated a civilization is from the mainland, the less it is "in the loop" on technology and alike.

What "mainland"? Africa is a continent. If you want examples of African empires that expanded beyond their core "tribes" and conquered enormous areas, then Mali, Songhai, and Kanem-Bornu are obvious examples that leap to mind.

South Africans were basically iscolated for a long time like the aborigines, so what can you expect them to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rozwi_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotapa
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/SWAHILI.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rozwi_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotapa
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/SWAHILI.HTM

The first two are pre-historic civilizations. The last was already a product of foreign encroachment.

@ Innonimatu....
Hm I did not know Prehistory ended in 1834

The first two are pre-historic civilizations. The last was already a product of foreign encroachment.

What foreign encroachment? There are plenty of Arab and Persian merchants but the cities were largely governed by Africans.

@ Innonimatu....
Hm I did not know Prehistory ended in 1834

Pre-history ends whenever a culture (or others for them) starts keeping written records. Thus it extended well into the 19th (and even 20th) century in several parts of the world.

What foreign encroachment? There are plenty of Arab and Persian merchants but the cities were largely governed by Africans.

Political power on those city-states rested with an elite formed by those merchants. Culture had been imported from the arabian peninsula, and the new elite and its culture clashed against those who lived outside the city-states. That's foreign encroachment.

Pre-history ends whenever a culture (or others for them) starts keeping written records. Thus it extended well into the 19th (and even 20th) century in several parts of the world.

The Incas and the Aztecs never keep written records, yet they developed powerful cultures.

Political power on those city-states rested with an elite formed by those merchants. Culture had been imported from the arabian peninsula, and the new elite and its culture clashed against those who lived outside the city-states. That's foreign encroachment.

In which case nearly all the world's existing cultures can be considered "products of foreign encroachment", since they all import culture from other civilisations. Only few cultures have evolved entirely on their own.

Take Ancient Rome for instances - its culture was imported largely from the Greeks and Etruscans, and its religion was imported from the Greeks, then from Palestine. In its early days Rome was probably controlled by an Etruscan elite, whose culture clashed with those of others.

The Incas and the Aztecs never keep written records, yet they developed powerful cultures.

Those had records, there are even some surviving Aztec codices. But I agree they were, like most African cultures, at an early stage of development. Which made them vulnerable...


In which case nearly all the world's existing cultures can be considered "products of foreign encroachment", since they all import culture from other civilisations. Only few cultures have evolved entirely on their own.

Take Ancient Rome for instances - its culture was imported largely from the Greeks and Etruscans, and its religion was imported from the Greeks, then from Palestine. In its early days Rome was probably controlled by an Etruscan elite, whose culture clashed with those of others.

I fully agree with you on that! :D That's where the difficulty with understanding the development and the collapse of empires starts. Who rules who? By what means are people ruled? Often this is not as it seems.

Modern Muslims don't justify spousal abuse, and Muhammed married Aisha when she was six because she was financially insecure and needed a husband. They did not consummate their marriage until later.

Couldn't he have just adopted her? And I read an article last week written by a Muslim woman in Italy about how many Muslim women there are beaten by their husbands.

Couldn't he have just adopted her? And I read an article last week written by a Muslim woman in Italy about how many Muslim women there are beaten by their husbands.

So are women of other religions. Seriously, violence against women is pretty much universal why single out Islam?

Not condoning violence against women of course. Personally I believe such people should be punish very severely.

Can someone explain to me what any of the discussion on this page has got to do with the OP?

So are women of other religions. Seriously, violence against women is pretty much universal why single out Islam?

Not condoning violence against women of course. Personally I believe such people should be punish very severely.

I wasn't particularly singling out Islam. He just said that modern muslims don't justify spousal abuse, but apparently many of them do.

Modern Muslims don't justify spousal abuse, and Muhammed married Aisha when she was six because she was financially insecure and needed a husband. They did not consummate their marriage until later.

Don't make me laugh. She was his favourite wife of which he had many; more than avergae muslims are allowed in fact. "They did not consumate their marriage until later:" Care to share when? I wonder why it slipped your mind. He was 57 and she was 9 when it was consumated... yes... very justified...

If one more person uses the fact Mohammed married a 9 year old and loosly turns it into another one of those "Proof that Islam is bad ZOMRG!!!11!"on stupid facts that they made up base on not the sitaution of Pre-Arabic Islam but that of Modern Day culture, I will fire a bullet into the thick headed bastard who talks

Don't make me laugh. She was his favourite wife of which he had many; more than avergae muslims are allowed in fact. "They did not consumate their marriage until later:" Care to share when? I wonder why it slipped your mind. He was 57 and she was 9 when it was consumated... yes... very justified...

Caligula married his niee. Therefore all romans are sick. Judging old cultures in a modern since to bash the modern day culture that descendes from the old one is so incredibly oboxious. I could critize plenty of ancient christians but that wouldn't make the religion bad.

It is not at all certain, although it is perfectly plausible, that Muhammad did marry Aisha when she was six; that is merely what tradition says.

Caligula married his niee. Therefore all romans are sick.

That would be true if the entire Roman society was based on the actions of Caligula.

That would be true if the entire Roman society was based on the actions of Caligula.
Yeah; Caligula didn't found a major world religion and isn't seen as a great and glorious leader. He was pretty much just fit for the nuthouse.

What "mainland"? Africa is a continent. If you want examples of African empires that expanded beyond their core "tribes" and conquered enormous areas, then Mali, Songhai, and Kanem-Bornu are obvious examples that leap to mind.

Rome expanded into Africa, as did Greece, as did Persia etc.... I was talking about Africa expanding out for significant periods (and I mean real Africans not Arabs.) I am aware that Africa is a continent...

The Incas and the Aztecs never keep written records, yet they developed powerful cultures.


I'm pretty sure there were many records but the Spanish whiped them out.

So are women of other religions. Seriously, violence against women is pretty much universal why single out Islam?

Not condoning violence against women of course. Personally I believe such people should be punish very severely.

"why single out Islam?" Because thou shalt beat thine wife isn't a commandment to christians, but Muslims are instructed to in the Koran.

Caligula married his niee. Therefore all romans are sick. Judging old cultures in a modern since to bash the modern day culture that descendes from the old one is so incredibly oboxious. I could critize plenty of ancient christians but that wouldn't make the religion bad.

Caligula is not my equivalent of Jesus, nore is he the equivalent to billions of other people.

Rome expanded into Africa, as did Greece, as did Persia etc.... I was talking about Africa expanding out for significant periods (and I mean real Africans not Arabs.) I am aware that Africa is a continent...

Egypt? Carthage? That kind of examples?

I'm pretty sure there were many records but the Spanish whiped them out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_literature#Prehispanic_oral_tradition\


"why single out Islam?" Because thou shalt beat thine wife isn't a commandment to christians, but Muslims are instructed to in the Koran.

So....My Muslim Malay Teacher is being beaten up by her husband, my Muslim friends hear the screams of their mother being beaten up every night, My Muslim neighbour beats his wife harshly, that 6-year old muslim boy i saw on the bus today is going to beat up his future wife....Strange I dont hear any screaming.

Oh no! We have to Single out Islam and destoy it because there must be like no moderate form of it! Unlike the Christian Moderation!

Rome expanded into Africa, as did Greece, as did Persia etc.... I was talking about Africa expanding out for significant periods (and I mean real Africans not Arabs.) I am aware that Africa is a continent...

Ancient Egypt, Berber Muslims (actually ruled southern Spain for a while).

Intercontinental expansion isn't a great measurement of how advanced a civilisation is. Also, Rome and Greece are already geographically close to Africa.

"why single out Islam?" Because thou shalt beat thine wife isn't a commandment to christians, but Muslims are instructed to in the Koran.

Well I suggest you re-read the Koran again because AFAIK there is no section that says "thou shalt beat your wives" just for the hell of it.

All Muslims are wife-beating, crazy terrorists, all Jews are evil capitalist warmongers, all Westerners are immoral, sex-obsessed consumerists, all Chinese are corrupt, infanticidal, ignorant, Mao-loving peasants, all Japanese are whale-hunting racist bigots, etc. These sorts of thinking is what causes the various world wars and the genocides. If we want to live in a global community then these sorts of thinking have to go.

Egypt? Carthage? That kind of examples?

Sheesh I said real Africans not ex-Greek colonies (Carthage.)
And mummies in Egypt have been found with ginger hair. It is disputeable as to whether they were white let alone black. They are a kind of mixture, but they certainly were never black.

Even if they were black, (they weren't) they didn't expand much, they're more cultural, like Greeks, (but Alexander the great changes this... anyway the kind of thing I'm saying is that Egypt didn't invade Greece but the opposite was true.) I may be wrong here.

Anyways black people get no vitamins from the sun where whites do but they get no/less skin cancer. This isn't superior or inferior, it is an adaptation. There is nothing to suggest mental differences are not caried past the physical differences, but having said this, thre is nothing to indicate that any mental differences are different or bigger than the physcal ones, so any differences can not be made the foundation of any social policies. I'm the only person I know with this neutral view, not far-right or far-left indoctrinated, balanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_literature#Prehispanic_oral_tradition\




So....My Muslim Malay Teacher is being beaten up by her husband, my Muslim friends hear the screams of their mother being beaten up every night, My Muslim neighbour beats his wife harshly, that 6-year old muslim boy i saw on the bus today is going to beat up his future wife....Strange I dont hear any screaming.

Oh no! We have to Single out Islam and destoy it because there must be like no moderate form of it! Unlike the Christian Moderation!

I was talking pre-Columbian records, they were kept, but most were destroyed.

Every society has its wife beaters, its murderers, its artists, its great and bad people, it is the levels of them that get people a reputation and rightfully so.

Ancient Egypt, Berber Muslims (actually ruled southern Spain for a while).

Intercontinental expansion isn't a great measurement of how advanced a civilisation is. Also, Rome and Greece are already geographically close to Africa.



Well I suggest you re-read the Koran again because AFAIK there is no section that says "thou shalt beat your wives" just for the hell of it.

All Muslims are wife-beating, crazy terrorists, all Jews are evil capitalist warmongers, all Westerners are immoral, sex-obsessed consumerists, all Chinese are corrupt, infanticidal, ignorant, Mao-loving peasants, all Japanese are whale-hunting racist bigots, etc. These sorts of thinking is what causes the various world wars and the genocides. If we want to live in a global community then these sorts of thinking have to go.

I know about Spain, I'm half Spanish, and I also realise how we pioneered the slave trade of real blacks. Not a good thing but shows the difference between the "backs" occupying us and the real ones that were our slaves at the very same time.

Like I said to someone else, levels of certain people give reputations, not all Jews are bankers but I was able to guess, without any background knowledge, that the new richest man was a Jew. I'm rarely wrong on stuff like this. They have disproportionate power. It is undeniable here in Britain to say Indian’s don't own most coronerships by pulling together as a family since you see them behind the counter. Not all Indians are shop owners. You can't see the Jews though because they are behind the signatures and the important treaties. They control so much of our private/public sectors that they could hold us to ransom for any Israel-related cause. The holocaust is their ultimate defence, they are now untouchable. Belgium is giving survivors millions even now, what about the holodomor survivors?

Multiculturalism is antidiversity and liberals are the real racists. I'd be happy to elaborate if you so wish.

Most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims.

I actualy sympathise with the pissed Muslims out there hugely, I just feel like angering the people here who defend some of the stone age religious aspects of Islam I disagree with.

Most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims.
And of those Muslims who are terrorists most are not terrorists because they are Muslim.

Sheesh I said real Africans not ex-Greek colonies (Carthage.)
And mummies in Egypt have been found with ginger hair. It is disputeable as to whether they were white let alone black. They are a kind of mixture, but they certainly were never black.

Carthage was Phoenician.

And just because they weren't black Egyptians aren't "real Africans"?

Even if they were black, (they weren't) they didn't expand much, they're more cultural, like Greeks, (but Alexander the great changes this... anyway the kind of thing I'm saying is that Egypt didn't invade Greece but the opposite was true.) I may be wrong here.


Nubia, Palestine, Syria, Libya were all at one stage under Egyptian control. The New Kingdom of ancient Egypt controls roughly twice the amount of territory controlled by modern Egypt.

I know about Spain, I'm half Spanish, and I also realise how we pioneered the slave trade of real blacks. Not a good thing but shows the difference between the "backs" occupying us and the real ones that were our slaves at the very same time.

The Berbers weren't called "Moors" for nothing...

Multiculturalism is antidiversity and liberals are the real racists. I'd be happy to elaborate if you so wish.

Oh please do elaborate if you so wish. As a liberal and multiculturalist I am happy to listen to all points of views.

I'm sure we'd all like to hear why liberals are racists, but not in this thread, I suspect.

I thought Carthage was of similar racial stock to Greeks… anyways liberal guy:

Liberals are anti diversity because they remove the geographic, historic, linguistic, and ironically cultural exclusivities of all the worlds’ amazingly diverse cultures. Currently British culture is a volatile mish-mash of anything but true British cultures, with Judaism at its head.

If London was majority black (for example,) by 2010 (the predicted date for London to have "whites," as a minority, would they care about our largely "white" history, statues and queen? Would they care about halting further migration? Sharia law will inevitably be imposed.

I want to preserve my dying culture. Multiculturalism is killing it. That is racist to me and anti-diversity over all. People don't come here for the weather. Love of nation cannot be determined by a meagre test or having better social/economic conditions abroad, it comes from one place and one alone, the heart. I cannot wake up tomorrow and feel like being a dog or being Egyptian, it just doesn’t work by what I consider myself to be, but by current standards if I felt Australian I could probably manage it.

Liberals let an utterly insignificant proportion of foreign races in and suddenly it's ok we totally rip those peoples native lands over? Well no it's not, it's racist. If we didn't let migrants in and ripped them off like we do now, it'd be rightfully considered racism, but since we let a few in and screw them over anyways it's suddenly not racism that we live largely off the hard work that others are expected to do abroad? There is a myth that we can’t be asked to do the low jobs and immigrants saved us. They were slowly weaved into the fabric of our nation until we became dependent on them, but our fabric was doing just fine prior to their addition.

An international minimum wage would be ideal but tricky. As a nation we could at least take it upon ourselves to only purchase products made at the hands of fairly paid people, making us more sought after trade partners and bringing industry back to Great Britain. We are currently living off the infinitely large (since they can't keep up,) interests of the poor, on loans long ago repaid.

If I go to Beijing, I know I'm in China, If I go to Warsaw I know I'm in Poland, if I go to London, I don't know where I am, and most of the people who built this great country are uneasy with these changes.

I love diversity, as do the Jews, (for us not them, naturally,) which is why I want to preserve it and not have a mixed race identical nation with Jews at its head. I hate the BS argument of how boring and nasty it would be if wherever we looked everyone were the same. Take a holiday. My grandparents in Spain haven't ever seen a black person in real life, I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying they haven't lost any sleep over it. And besides, since when is everyone being mixed-race exciting?

Why is it that only nations of western European descent have the joys of the multicult thrust upon us? Saudi Arabia is closer to Africa and Asia and richer than Great Britain, would it benefit cultural diversity if they were decimated overnight? You can't let some in and others not, by slowing immigration you are only making it a slow and agonising death for the victim nation, there is no middle ground, you can kill a man or not kill a man, you can't half kill him (same with a nation,) killing him slowly isn't a middle ground.

God had sense. He left the Promised Land to the Jews. If overnight they were flooded (AKA invaded) by a foreign tribe who worshiped foreign Gods, spoke foreign languages and had different cultures, with no concern for the natives survival, would God be pissed or what? (They wouldn't go out their way to be nasty but they're not gonna bend over backwards to ensure their cultures don't integrate with theirs.)



Carthage was Phoenician.

And just because they weren't black Egyptians aren't "real Africans"?



Nubia, Palestine, Syria, Libya were all at one stage under Egyptian control. The New Kingdom of ancient Egypt controls roughly twice the amount of territory controlled by modern Egypt.



The Berbers weren't called "Moors" for nothing...



Oh please do elaborate if you so wish. As a liberal and multiculturalist I am happy to listen to all points of views.

And of those Muslims who are terrorists most are not terrorists because they are Muslim.

True, I'd happily be a terrorist if I was a Muslim. We invade them, demonise them and do nothing in terms of helping them in the name of Israel.

Japan has the same right to give Tanzania to Turkey as we did to give Israel to the Jews because they didn't like the outcome of the war that they declared.

The Jews found in WW2 the ultimate defence and barrier to the critisism they rightfully (to an extent) faced throughout history, but Islam doesn't buy it. Neither do I. Belgium recently payed 170mil to Holocost survivors, fair do's but has anybody heard about the holodomor? Does anybody care? Type it in microsoft word, word not recognised? But hey, everyone knows 10 million Ukranians lives mean nothing when compared to 6 million (disputable) Jews :rolleyes:. It is a shame indeed that only the nations professing to free speach we have such restrictions upon it, restrictions found nowhere else in the worlds evil nasty dictatorships.

I thought Carthage was of similar racial stock to Greeks… anyways liberal guy:

Liberals are anti diversity because they remove the geographic, historic, linguistic, and ironically cultural exclusivities of all the worlds’ amazingly diverse cultures. Currently British culture is a volatile mish-mash of anything but true British cultures, with Judaism at its head.

If London was majority black (for example,) by 2010 (the predicted date for London to have "whites," as a minority, would they care about our largely "white" history, statues and queen? Would they care about halting further migration? Sharia law will inevitably be imposed.

I want to preserve my dying culture. Multiculturalism is killing it. That is racist to me and anti-diversity over all. People don't come here for the weather. Love of nation cannot be determined by a meagre test or having better social/economic conditions abroad, it comes from one place and one alone, the heart. I cannot wake up tomorrow and feel like being a dog or being Egyptian, it just doesn’t work by what I consider myself to be, but by current standards if I felt Australian I could probably manage it.

Liberals let an utterly insignificant proportion of foreign races in and suddenly it's ok we totally rip those peoples native lands over? Well no it's not, it's racist. If we didn't let migrants in and ripped them off like we do now, it'd be rightfully considered racism, but since we let a few in and screw them over anyways it's suddenly not racism that we live largely off the hard work that others are expected to do abroad? There is a myth that we can’t be asked to do the low jobs and immigrants saved us. They were slowly weaved into the fabric of our nation until we became dependent on them, but our fabric was doing just fine prior to their addition.

An international minimum wage would be ideal but tricky. As a nation we could at least take it upon ourselves to only purchase products made at the hands of fairly paid people, making us more sought after trade partners and bringing industry back to Great Britain. We are currently living off the infinitely large (since they can't keep up,) interests of the poor, on loans long ago repaid.

If I go to Beijing, I know I'm in China, If I go to Warsaw I know I'm in Poland, if I go to London, I don't know where I am, and most of the people who built this great country are uneasy with these changes.

I love diversity, as do the Jews, (for us not them, naturally,) which is why I want to preserve it and not have a mixed race identical nation with Jews at its head. I hate the BS argument of how boring and nasty it would be if wherever we looked everyone were the same. Take a holiday. My grandparents in Spain haven't ever seen a black person in real life, I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying they haven't lost any sleep over it. And besides, since when is everyone being mixed-race exciting?

Why is it that only nations of western European descent have the joys of the multicult thrust upon us? Saudi Arabia is closer to Africa and Asia and richer than Great Britain, would it benefit cultural diversity if they were decimated overnight? You can't let some in and others not, by slowing immigration you are only making it a slow and agonising death for the victim nation, there is no middle ground, you can kill a man or not kill a man, you can't half kill him (same with a nation,) killing him slowly isn't a middle ground.

God had sense. He left the Promised Land to the Jews. If overnight they were flooded (AKA invaded) by a foreign tribe who worshiped foreign Gods, spoke foreign languages and had different cultures, with no concern for the natives survival, would God be pissed or what? (They wouldn't go out their way to be nasty but they're not gonna bend over backwards to ensure their cultures don't integrate with theirs.)


that's how culture works, different cultures mix up, get mashed, form something new, sometimes one surpresses and almost destroys another (though still incorporating a little...) i doubt you'll find a lot of englishmen who call their culture norman or saxon... that's because they're english now...

and get over your obsession with jews, boy... :rolleyes:

oh and the discussion how black egyptians were aside, i doubt anyone would argue that they were not african...

that's how culture works, different cultures mix up, get mashed, form something new, sometimes one surpresses and almost destroys another (though still incorporating a little...) i doubt you'll find a lot of englishmen who call their culture norman or saxon... that's because they're english now...

and get over your obsession with jews, boy... :rolleyes:

oh and the discussion how black egyptians were aside, i doubt anyone would argue that they were not african...

Immigration on such a scale as today has never happened before where people go to live in a country's existing infastructure. This is a new phenomenon (sp?) This is not how cultures work. And if your trying to say people didn't resist to cultural extermination in the past you are wrong. I'm not going to stand by and die slowly like a toad getting boiled and be, "supressed," as you put it, simply because it has happened before. People have been run over before but I'm pretty sure you look both ways before you cross the road...

For ANY foreign peoples to hold such Rasputin-like power over us, to an extent where we are bound to do as they wish, I naturally dislike it. I've said this before. All people have naturally disliked this throughout history, until the post-WW2 era where a form of indocrination has taken place.

As for the Egyptians, I though I said apart from North Africans...(?)

Try to answer without iffy-fluffy leftist cleches. I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just sick of hearing how we'd all die if everyone around us wasn't non western-european and how we can put the c*ap happening now adays down to being a historical recurrence; I'm not even asking you to answer, I'm just saying, if you do, don't snipe without cause or substance. Immigration to Britain is very old, true, but I wouldn't give a damn if a Chinese guy moved over the other side of town, he'd intergrate. What's he gonna do, form a one man gang? I would care however, if the whole town I've lived in all my life turned Chinese. This would give me no say in anything in my own town, few places of worship, at the mercy of foreign peoples, at the rule of foreign peoples, with no place to get the type of food (silly example,) I used to have, etc.

But what the heck, if wiping every single last western-Europeans has been going on for thousands of years, I'll sit back and take it. (???????????)


Off-topic. Is there any way of changing my name? (I'm not aryan blooded.)

Immigration on such a scale as today has never happened before where people go to live in a country's existing infastructure. This is a new phenomenon (sp?) This is not how cultures work.

No, it had happened before, many times in history.

Consider the mass emigration of Jews into then almost-exclusively Arab Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th century. Or the mass migration of Tamils into Sri Lanka or Nepalese into Sikkim, or of South Asians into Indian Ocean and Pacific islands, and places like Malaysia and Singapore (partly as a result of British policy of the time).

Also consider colonisation. In Australia, parts of Africa, and the Americas, the indigenous culture was superceded by the immigrant culture brought in by large movement of people. For earlier examples, think back to Turkish (from Central Asia) or Arab immigration in the Middle East in medieval times, Chinese immigration to South East Asia in the Ming and Qing dynasties, the Germanic Mass Migration into Roman territory, et cetera.

In all of these cases the immigrants came to live in areas with established indigenous population. The cultural mix of the area changes slowly over time, and, in these examples, the immigrant culture eventually became dominant, but usually incorporates many aspects of the indigenous culture. And that is how culture had been throughout history. It spreads, and changes as it does. And it spreads in most cases by immigration.

A bit off topic now, but some people use this as an example to show that multiculturalism doesn't work. And, in a sense, it doesn't in the long run, since usually one culture eventually gain prominence over others. However, I see multiculturalism as a useful concept in an interconnected world. It all comes down to respect or, at least, tolerance for other cultures.

And if your trying to say people didn't resist to cultural extermination in the past you are wrong. I'm not going to stand by and die slowly like a toad getting boiled and be, "supressed," as you put it, simply because it has happened before. People have been run over before but I'm pretty sure you look both ways before you cross the road...

For ANY foreign peoples to hold such Rasputin-like power over us, to an extent where we are bound to do as they wish, I naturally dislike it. I've said this before. All people have naturally disliked this throughout history, until the post-WW2 era where a form of indocrination has taken place.

So, what do you want to do? You talk as if different cultures are somehow perpetually at war.

I see culture as something complex, something that is naturally in competition with other cultures, but paradoxically can co-exist with them, and something that changes. That people dislike change in culture is understandable, but stopping change would only result in change, and in the end you can't please everybody.

You say you dislike foreigners holding "Rasputin-like power" over you. What about if it's people of your culture and not foreigners? Natives or foreigners, it all come down to a totalitarian society.

I would care however, if the whole town I've lived in all my life turned Chinese. This would give me no say in anything in my own town, few places of worship, at the mercy of foreign peoples, at the rule of foreign peoples, with no place to get the type of food (silly example,) I used to have, etc.

But what the heck, if wiping every single last western-Europeans has been going on for thousands of years, I'll sit back and take it. (???????????)


Maybe you should start looking into (dare I say it) multiculturalism. If everyone is serious about multiculturalism and what's it's about (tolerance and co-existence) then a scenario like the one you describe would not happen.

You are being unnecessarily extreme. Wiping out whole cultures in a short period of time is not possible, except via nuclear holocaust or wholesale genocide. And just because you live in a place where another culture is dominant doesn't necessarily make your life hell.

nothing to add except for:

Off-topic. Is there any way of changing my name? (I'm not aryan blooded.)

:lol::lol::lol:

As for the Egyptians, I though I said apart from North Africans...(?)

you said:

Rome expanded into Africa, as did Greece, as did Persia etc.... I was talking about Africa expanding out for significant periods (and I mean real Africans not Arabs.) I am aware that Africa is a continent...

arabs are not north africans, they are from the arabian peninsula, which is part of asia.

if the whole town I've lived in all my life turned Chinese. This would give me no say in anything in my own town, few places of worship, at the mercy of foreign peoples, at the rule of foreign peoples, with no place to get the type of food (silly example,) I used to have, etc.

Paranoid much?

How exactly would foreign people rule you, if they moved into your neighbourhood? There are people living in your neighbourhood now (I would imagine), do they rule over you?

All the migrations you mentioned didn't wipe out the culture of the people they moved to. They may have dominated certain areas but they didn't wipe out the victim countries culture, they had something to fall back on. Again, I don't really care if the same scenario has happened before, (it hasn't, else I wouldn't be here,) but what is happening now does not benifit cultural diversity. In Britain, we let a microscopic amount of foreign peoples in and suddenly it's fine that their native lands are still wildly exploited by us.

I have considered colonisation which is why I said existing infrasturcture.

Forgetting history or anything else, why is it fair or right that the people that built both the countries I am from, are forced to make the unfortunate compromise of voting for either a mainstream left-wing party, with (in principal,) an agreeable economic outlook but a suicidal social one, or a more right-wing leaning (yet centralised,) party, professing to have a better social outlook but a rubbish economic one?

"You say you dislike foreigners holding "Rasputin-like power" over you. What about if it's people of your culture and not foreigners?"
-Jews look out for Jews and have disproportionate control. The powerful people over here don't have a seperate and foreign agenda, they're just greedy and look out for themselves.

"You are being unnecessarily extreme. Wiping out whole cultures in a short period of time is not possible, except via nuclear holocaust or wholesale genocide. And just because you live in a place where another culture is dominant doesn't necessarily make your life hell"

Like I said, a constant and heavy drip of migrants may aswell be wiping us out overnight, there is no middle ground. I live in a place where my culture is and always has been dominant (as far as anyone can remember,) and my life is just fine, I'd like to keep both these things this way.

No, it had happened before, many times in history.

Consider the mass emigration of Jews into then almost-exclusively Arab Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th century. Or the mass migration of Tamils into Sri Lanka or Nepalese into Sikkim, or of South Asians into Indian Ocean and Pacific islands, and places like Malaysia and Singapore (partly as a result of British policy of the time).

Also consider colonisation. In Australia, parts of Africa, and the Americas, the indigenous culture was superceded by the immigrant culture brought in by large movement of people. For earlier examples, think back to Turkish (from Central Asia) or Arab immigration in the Middle East in medieval times, Chinese immigration to South East Asia in the Ming and Qing dynasties, the Germanic Mass Migration into Roman territory, et cetera.

In all of these cases the immigrants came to live in areas with established indigenous population. The cultural mix of the area changes slowly over time, and, in these examples, the immigrant culture eventually became dominant, but usually incorporates many aspects of the indigenous culture. And that is how culture had been throughout history. It spreads, and changes as it does. And it spreads in most cases by immigration.

A bit off topic now, but some people use this as an example to show that multiculturalism doesn't work. And, in a sense, it doesn't in the long run, since usually one culture eventually gain prominence over others. However, I see multiculturalism as a useful concept in an interconnected world. It all comes down to respect or, at least, tolerance for other cultures.



So, what do you want to do? You talk as if different cultures are somehow perpetually at war.

I see culture as something complex, something that is naturally in competition with other cultures, but paradoxically can co-exist with them, and something that changes. That people dislike change in culture is understandable, but stopping change would only result in change, and in the end you can't please everybody.

You say you dislike foreigners holding "Rasputin-like power" over you. What about if it's people of your culture and not foreigners? Natives or foreigners, it all come down to a totalitarian society.



Maybe you should start looking into (dare I say it) multiculturalism. If everyone is serious about multiculturalism and what's it's about (tolerance and co-existence) then a scenario like the one you describe would not happen.

You are being unnecessarily extreme. Wiping out whole cultures in a short period of time is not possible, except via nuclear holocaust or wholesale genocide. And just because you live in a place where another culture is dominant doesn't necessarily make your life hell.

Paranoid much?

How exactly would foreign people rule you, if they moved into your neighbourhood? There are people living in your neighbourhood now (I would imagine), do they rule over you?

In my neighbourhood someone can have an affair and not be stoned to death for it. This will soon be the case if things keep going as they are. I live in a democracy, as soon as 51% of another group are a majority, I am at their mercy, if they want me to convert to Islam by force in my own country, they can, I'm not saying they would, it's the principal.

Again. Would it benifit cultural diversity if we made Arabs a minority in their own country? They're richer than over here, they're culturaly, historicaly and geographicaly (and therefore practicaly) closer, so why not target them?

Past migrations to existing infrastructure were mainly to neighbouring and closely related nations, moreso than the Congo and Belgium for example.

Everyone has had their moment in the sun, (except for Africa not counting the north if we're honest,) every civilization has murdered and killed and invaded if the oppurtunity arises and of course it isn't right. Europeans repelled the Arabs from their lands and had a large army left over at their disposal, what civilization has ever been in that situation and not exploited it that has lived to tell the tale?

That's what I originaly said. I later clarified a little more, if I was not clear then I apologise but I didn't mean the north because people from their aren't of the same racial stock as elsewhere, not now or even historicaly.

you said:



arabs are not north africans, they are from the arabian peninsula, which is part of asia.

Hijacked thread closed.