View Full Version : Christian Crusades - muslim perspectives
Perspectives and Religion in the Crusades
From Austin Cline (http://atheism.about.com/mbiopage.htm),
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism (http://atheism.about.com/).
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now! (http://atheism.about.com/gi/pages/mmail.htm)
(Continued from Page 3) (http://atheism.about.com/od/crusades/a/crusadesviews_3.htm)
View of the Crusades from Today
The meaning of the Crusades for politics and society today cannot be understood simply by looking at the violence, the persecutions, or the economic changes they wrought. However important those things may have been at the time, the meaning of the Crusades for people today is determined not so much by what actually happened as it is by what people believe happened and the stories they tell each other about the past.
Both Christian and Muslim communities continue to look back upon the Crusades as a time when devout believers went to war in order to defend their faith. Muslims are seen as defenders of a religion that relied upon force and violence to propagate itself, and Turks even today are viewed through the lens of the threat the Ottomans posed to Europe. Christians are seen as defenders of both a crusading religion and imperialism, and thus any western incursion into the Middle East is regarded as simply a continuation of the medieval crusading spirit. zSB(3,3)Sponsored Links
The Catholic Crusades andthe truth about the Catholic Church after Vatican II, prophecy, videoswww.mostholyfamilymonastery.com (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=BJKb24iLgRvPDCY7SmwT55OjJCPzenS3k8vzGBMCNtwHwhA 4QARgBILyl9wEoCDgAUPbW5PD5_____wFgyb6ijNCk5A-YAYHxoAOYAdqwnCGgAbjDtPgDqgEQcHJpbWVkaWFfYXRoZWlzb bIBEWF0aGVpc20uYWJvdXQuY29tyAEB2gE6aHR0cDovL2F0aGV pc20uYWJvdXQuY29tL29kL2NydXNhZGVzL2EvY3J1c2FkZXN2a WV3c180Lmh0bagDAbgDAegDsQPoA-sC6APgBvUDAAQAAPUDAAgAAA&num=1&adurl=http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com&client=ca-primedia-basic_js)
Religious historyA chronology of Christian atrocities and absurdities.www.non-religious.com/chronology (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=BZlte4iLgRvPDCY7SmwT55OjJCL3R0gjnydidAcCNtwHQhg MQAhgCILyl9wEoCDgAUKr02Kn4_____wFgyb6ijNCk5A-YAYHxoAOYAdqwnCGqARBwcmltZWRpYV9hdGhlaXNtsgERYXRoZ WlzbS5hYm91dC5jb23IAQHaATpodHRwOi8vYXRoZWlzbS5hYm9 1dC5jb20vb2QvY3J1c2FkZXMvYS9jcnVzYWRlc3ZpZXdzXzQua HRtqAMBuAMB6AOxA-gD6wLoA-AG9QMABAAA9QMACAAA&num=2&adurl=http://www.non-religious.com/chronology.html&client=ca-primedia-basic_js)
CrusadesEverything to do with Crusades items.shopping.yahoo.com (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=BC5NS4iLgRvPDCY7SmwT55OjJCMe62g-XlO6AAsCNtwGA8QQQAxgDILyl9wEoCDgAUJueurMGYMm-oozQpOQPmAGB8aADmAHasJwhqgEQcHJpbWVkaWFfYXRoZWlzbb IBEWF0aGVpc20uYWJvdXQuY29tyAEB2gE6aHR0cDovL2F0aGVp c20uYWJvdXQuY29tL29kL2NydXNhZGVzL2EvY3J1c2FkZXN2aW V3c180Lmh0bagDAbgDAegDsQPoA-sC6APgBvUDAAQAAPUDAAgAAA&num=3&ggladgrp=269341315&gglcreat=451324915&adurl=http://www.jdoqocy.com/click-2118118-10473284%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fshopping.yahoo .com%252Fsearch%253Fp%253DCrusades%2526view%253Dg% 26sid%3DCTTys10k238944-35392&client=ca-primedia-basic_js)
If Muslims were to be concerned solely with conflicts they lost, they would be looking at the record of European colonialism throughout the Middle East and beyond. There is certainly a great deal there to complain about and there are good arguments that problems today are in part a legacy of European colonial borders and practices.
European colonialism completely reversed a legacy of self-rule and conquest which had existed since the time of Muhammad. Instead of being the equals of, if not superior to, the Christian West, they came to be ruled and dominated by the Christian West. This was a significant blow to Muslims' sense of autonomy and identity, a blow which they are continuing to deal with.
Colonialism is not alone, though, as a target of Muslims' anger - the Crusades are treated as the defining paradigm for relations between Islam and Christianity. European colonialism is almost always treated not as a separate event from the Crusades but instead a continuation of them in a new form - just as is the creation of the state of Israel.
How else can one comprehend the fact that today the Crusades are used as a rallying cry among Muslims in the Middle East? Any privations or oppression currently experienced by Muslims are depicted as simply a continuation of the invasions originally launched to conquer the region. It is curious that this would be the case because, after all, the Crusades were a spectacular failure. The land conquered was relatively small and not held for very long, and the only permanent losses suffered was the Iberian peninsula, a region originally European and Christian anyway.
Today, though, the Crusades continue to be a sensitive issue as though Islam had lost, and sometimes current problems are actually attributed to the effects of the Crusades. Yet Muslims suffered no long-term effects from the Crusades, and in fact Muslim forces rebounded to capture Constantinople and move further into Europe than Christians moved into the Middle East. The Crusades were not simply a Muslim victory but, over time, proved Muslim superiority in terms of tactics, numbers, and the ability to unify against an external threat.
Although the Crusades generally tend to be viewed through the lens of humiliation, one bright spot in the whole affair is the figure of Saladin: the dashing military leader who united the Muslims into an effective fighting force that essentially drove out the Christian invaders. Even today Arab Muslims revere Saladin and say that another Saladin is needed to get rid of the current invaders — in Israel. Jews today are regarded by many as modern-day Crusaders, Europeans or descendants of Europeans holding much of the same land that made up the original Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. It is hoped that their “kingdom” will soon be eliminated as well. When promoting the war against terrorism, President George W. Bush originally described it as a "crusade," something he was forced to back off from immediately because it only reinforced Muslims' perception that the "war on terrorism" was merely a mask for a new Western "war on Islam." Any attempt by western powers to interfere with Arab or Muslim affairs is viewed through the twin lenses of Christian Crusades and European colonialism. That, more than anything, is the contemporary legacy of the Crusades and one which will continue to afflict relations between Islam and Christianity for a long time to come.
I think this article sums up what i was trying to say in the other thread. and note the reference to Bush in the final paragraph.
zrinkill
09-06-2007, 11:07 AM
http://atheism.about.com/mbiopage.htm
That is the guy who wrote it ..... on atheism.com ...... I think that makes it easy to see why he is against the "Christian" crusades.
http://atheism.about.com/mbiopage.htm
That is the guy who wrote it ..... on atheism.comyes. im aware of that, i posted the article. is it irrelevant because an atheist posted it ?
zrinkill
09-06-2007, 11:16 AM
yes. im aware of that, i posted the article. is it irrelevant because an atheist posted it ?
The relevance is that his anti Christian stance will affect his takes on the entire situation .....
That is the same as a Nazi writing about antisemitism.
Or a preacher writing a book about atheist.
Could you honestly tell me that you would take seriously a Book about the dangers of Atheism, that was written by a Baptist preacher?
I don't think so.
AtlCB
09-06-2007, 11:31 AM
Wow! They can't let go of something that happened hundreds of years ago? Someone also may want to tell the Muslims and the writer that the U.S. didn't exist during the crusades and were not part of the European colonialism of the Middle East.
A muslim perspective from a non-Muslim. An aetheist, which is fine, yet one who takes a pro and con tact in a struggle he doesn't believe in, rendering him not objective, but highly subjective.
The crusades a spectacular failure? Okaaay, let's pretend current history and the civilizational repercussions of them don't exist. The Muslims really only wanted what they have, their earlier conquests were just for show.
:eek:
He seems to ignore a certain aspect of history, particularly the Caliphate of the 7th and 8th century which saw a Muslim expansion, (not simply an autonomous or equal ideology, as the author tries to paint them as), into Europe. The crusades were a reaction to take back Christian lands.
Of course, it is used to this day to politicize and rally the masses, just as patriotism and cry's for freedom are used on our side.
---------
Exactly what we see, is also what we see today, in reaction to the United States victory in the Cold War. The winner is seen as an imperialist tyrant. All of it's actions in defense of itself are, after the dangers have passed of course, thoroughly scrutinized and criticized and marginalized to the nth degree.
The loser gets the luxury of underdog, victim status, simply by virtue of losing.
If there indeed exists a large cultural struggle, you can be sure Bush is merely a small part and not much in the way of a catalystic player to be hung for his role in the struggle.
It's a mass movement of humanity, with flock-like thinking, to powerful for any individual or group of 'enlightened individuals' to stand against, any more than they can stop evolution. Influence? Yes. Stop? No.
Sasquatch
09-06-2007, 11:52 AM
The crusades were a reaction to take back Christian lands.
Depending on the Crusade. I believe there were a few against heretic Christians (Albigensians in southern France) and in places like Germany and Finland as well that were never conquered by Muslims. I could be wrong.
The relevance is that his anti Christian stance will affect his takes on the entire situation .....
That is the same as a Nazi writing about antisemitism.
Or a preacher writing a book about atheist.
Could you honestly tell me that you would take seriously a Book about the dangers of Atheism, that was written by a Baptist preacher?
I don't think so.LOL, seriously ?? if he is an atheist than he has no allegiance to christians or muslims. furthermore he is not mentioning his stance but reporting only what is the perception of muslim nations, not whether they are even right or wrong, just what they think, feel and beleive and what has led up to their perceptions
the point about Bush is that he doesnt care how his actions or statements rub people, Bush could care less that he is creating more antiamerican sentiment (and not just with the terrorist - with other peoples of the world as well). But that doesnt matter because the US is too powerful and important to worry about what others think.
Depending on the Crusade. I believe there were a few against heretic Christians (Albigensians in southern France) and in places like Germany and Finland as well that were never conquered by Muslims. I could be wrong.
You're right. The later crusades are what generally gave the term 'Crusades' a bad name for Christianity.
It's worth noting, in the context of today's Islam, that what was happening then, i.e., bad Christians, is what is happening today. Bad Muslims being victimized, deth threats issued for mere mention of dissent.
Considering that they are acting very much like a civilization from century's ago, isn't probably that they're a large part of the problem?
Would you coddle a grown man who acts like you did when you were 3?
the point about Bush is that he doesnt care how his actions or statements rub people, Bush could care less that he is creating more antiamerican sentiment (and not just with the terrorist - with other peoples of the world as well). But that doesnt matter because the US is too powerful and important to worry about what others think.
Why should he? Do Islamists who burn effigies and flags and attack civilians care about the image project? No. Obviously they are allowed such behaviour, but God forbid an American President say something and it's cataclysmic.
America is the focal point of the war on their side. Other countries, while helping, (kudos to Germany and the many others who do help) can afford to be less aggressive at the moment. America, being the most powerful as you've acknowledged has much more to lose.
What others think is fine, it's how others act, most notably when they attack American civilian targets.
Sasquatch
09-06-2007, 12:24 PM
You're right. The later crusades are what generally gave the term 'Crusades' a bad name for Christianity.
Not the Jewish massacres (!st Crusade - Cologne), the attacks on Constantinople and Zara (4th Crusade), and the petty infighting among the various factions throughout?
LOL, seriously ?? if he is an atheist than he has no allegiance to christians or muslims. furthermore he is not mentioning his stance but reporting only what is the perception of muslim nations, not whether they are even right or wrong, just what they think, feel and beleive and what has led up to their perceptions
Language has a way of revealing a persons inner feelings and this guy isn't that crafty at it. He very much is declaring his stance, with his handling of it.
Not the Jewish massacres (!st Crusade - Cologne), the attacks on Constantinople and Zara (4th Crusade), and the petty infighting among the various factions throughout?
Their actions in war were as they very much were: atrocious. No doubt. The initial impetus for the Crusades were to retake lands from Muslims.
The later Crusades you mentioned were based more on arrogance.
Why should he? Do Islamists who burn effigies and flags and attack civilians care about the image project? No. Obviously they are allowed such behaviour, but God forbid an American President say something and it's cataclysmic.
America is the focal point of the war on their side. Other countries, while helping, (kudos to Germany and the many others who do help) can afford to be less aggressive at the moment. America, being the most powerful as you've acknowledged has much more to lose.
What others think is fine, it's how others act, most notably when they attack American civilian targets.
Bush did a little more than just say something
Sasquatch
09-06-2007, 12:38 PM
Their actions in war were as they very much were: atrocious. No doubt. The initial impetus for the Crusades were to retake lands from Muslims.
The later Crusades you mentioned were based more on arrogance.
I'll grant you that but the attacks on German Jews can hardly be dismissed as the atrocities of war since there was no war or enemy being engaged at that particular time and place other than the Jews. Antisemitism fed by religious fanaticism run amok.
Didn't the Crusaders also threaten to attack Constantinople, whom they were supposed to help, for various reasons during the First Crusade? I have the impression that the Emperor at the time regarded the Crusaders as little more than an unruly mob whom he couldn't wait to help get on their way.
zrinkill
09-06-2007, 01:18 PM
LOL, seriously ?? if he is an atheist than he has no allegiance to christians or muslims. furthermore he is not mentioning his stance but reporting only what is the perception of muslim nations, not whether they are even right or wrong, just what they think, feel and beleive and what has led up to their perceptions
I noticed you ignored my question even after I answered yours
It was
Could you honestly tell me that you would take seriously a Book about the dangers of Atheism, that was written by a Baptist preacher?
I'll grant you that but the attacks on German Jews can hardly be dismissed as the atrocities of war since there was no war or enemy being engaged at that particular time and place other than the Jews. Antisemitism fed by religious fanaticism run amok.
Didn't the Crusaders also threaten to attack Constantinople, whom they were supposed to help, for various reasons during the First Crusade? I have the impression that the Emperor at the time regarded the Crusaders as little more than an unruly mob whom he couldn't wait to help get on their way.
You're referring to Peter, who was in no part related to any official army and roused up his own small army. Causing trouble, first with local Jews, then moving on to Constantinople.
The real army arrived in Constantinople after Peters mess was moved on and there were no hostilities. Just like today, there were instances of people behaving badly in the name of the cause. People have not changed much, have they?
In regard to the initial topic, I'm not trying to legitimize the actions of an ancient civilization, I simply find the allusion to the Crusades as a reason for bad behaviour amongst Muslims a very empty one.
Crown Royal
09-06-2007, 01:51 PM
http://atheism.about.com/mbiopage.htm
That is the guy who wrote it ..... on atheism.com ...... I think that makes it easy to see why he is against the "Christian" crusades.
The relevance is that his anti Christian stance will affect his takes on the entire situation .....
That is the same as a Nazi writing about antisemitism.
Or a preacher writing a book about atheist.
Could you honestly tell me that you would take seriously a Book about the dangers of Atheism, that was written by a Baptist preacher?
I don't think so.
Atheims isn't anti-Christian. If anything, an atheist writing on the actions between a Christian and a Muslim nation would act as a third party, not a Pro-Muslim.
I noticed you ignored my question even after I answered yours
It was
Could you honestly tell me that you would take seriously a Book about the dangers of Atheism, that was written by a Baptist preacher?
1) take seriously - as in beleive that that man was writing something he beleived to be important....yes
2) would i read with an open mind and consider that he might have found, discovered or thought of something that i missed.....yes
3) would i allow for the fact that even though he be a baptist minister, he might be mature enough to try and not let his own religion negate rationalism and reason....yes
4)but i would know that he might write the book to push his own agenda so i would be looking for that, yet that alone would not necessarilly meant that there was nothing of value in the book.
The only way to truly be objective is to forget your own thoughts for a moment, put them aside and try to see the others point of view to determine if ther might be some validity to what they are saying that my own bias blinded me from.
Now i think it is perferctly acceptable for a minister to write about the dangers of atheism, and i think there are "dangers" if you will - to the atheist. from my experince people who strongly ascribe to the atheistic viewpoint seem to be so defensive about anything spiritual that they tend to block themselves off from a important part of the human psyche. and this can be discussed without pushing any religion on someone else.
i am not an atheist by any means. my family is christian, but i have studied christianity to the depths and discovered much is not as it seems, and i have studied the other religions of the world and found that there is so many misconceptions, most people truly are ignorant to the very religion that they ascribe to and know very little.
Bush did a little more than just say something
Very true. And of the actions before Bush... ?
These are pertinent and have guided him in the decisions he's made.
zrinkill
09-06-2007, 01:58 PM
Atheims isn't anti-Christian. If anything, an atheist writing on the actions between a Christian and a Muslim nation would act as a third party, not a Pro-Muslim.
So you do not believe this particular guy had an agenda? I think you should look him up a little.
zrinkill
09-06-2007, 02:00 PM
1) take seriously - as in beleive that that man was writing something he beleived to be important....yes
2) would i read with an open mind and consider that he might have found, discovered or thought of something that i missed.....yes
3) would i allow for the fact that even though he be a baptist minister, he might be mature enough to try and not let his own religion negate rationalism and reason....yes
4)but i would know that he might write the book to push his own agenda so i would be looking for that, yet that alone would not necessarilly meant that there was nothing of value in the book.
The only way to truly be objective is to forget your own thoughts for a moment, put them aside and try to see the others point of view to determine if ther might be some validity to what they are saying that my own bias blinded me from.
Now i think it is perferctly acceptable for a minister to write about the dangers of atheism, and i think there are "dangers" if you will - to the atheist. from my experince people who strongly ascribe to the atheistic viewpoint seem to be so defensive about anything spiritual that they tend to block themselves off from a important part of the human psyche. and this can be discussed without pushing any religion on someone else.
i am not an atheist by any means. my family is christian, but i have studied christianity to the depths and discovered much is not as it seems, and i have studied the other religions of the world and found that there is so many misconceptions, most people truly are ignorant to the very religion that they ascribe to and know very little.
Thanks you for answering .... I believe this particular guy has an agenda he is pushing .... just from other articles I looked up that he wrote.
Crown Royal
09-06-2007, 02:03 PM
So you do not believe this particular guy had an agenda? I think you should look him up a little.
I don't know whether he does or not. I didn't read the entire article. But it isn't fair to ridicule an article on a historical event because the author is an atheist.
So you do not believe this particular guy had an agenda?there were other peices or parts to teh article. i just posted the one that discussed crusades and muslims, to be honest i read the whole thing as more of a history peice.
its possible he is a bush hater and therefore threw that comment about bush in there when it was not neccessary, but the fact remains that Bush was not so bright in some of the things he has done and said and that is one example of many.
i found the article by googling -crusades and muslims - and was suprised that what i found was very similar to what i had been posting in the other thread.
zrinkill
09-06-2007, 02:07 PM
I don't know whether he does or not. I didn't read the entire article. But it isn't fair to ridicule an article on a historical event because the author is an atheist.
Agreed ..... I think I misspoke, I should have said an Athiest who takes offense at any kind of religion ...... which a great great many of them do ..... Just like a great many religious people take offense at someone who rebukes the notion of a god.
zrinkill
09-06-2007, 02:10 PM
there were other peices or parts to teh article. i just posted the one that discussed crusades and muslims, to be honest i read the whole thing as more of a history peice.
its possible he is a bush hater and therefore threw that comment about bush in there when it was not neccessary, but the fact remains that Bush was not so bright in some of the things he has done and said and that is one example of many.
i found the article by googling -crusades and muslims - and was suprised that what i found was very similar to what i had been posting in the other thread.
Understood, I apologize if I seemed judgmental or aggressive on the motives behind the post..
Understood, I apologize if I seemed judgmental or aggressive on the motives behind the post..
not really.
its a sticky situation right now though - the amount of animosity from muslims toward christians. and even if we think they are wrong in their thoughts and beleifs, the fact remains that what they beleive is very real to them and they feel justified.
what can be done to alleviate some of this, more attacks on them make them think even more that they are victims and in the right and we are the aggressor, thus another 4-8 years of what we've had with the Bush regime could further escalate things.
zrinkill
09-06-2007, 02:29 PM
not really.
its a sticky situation right now though - the amount of animosity from muslims toward christians. and even if we think they are wrong in their thoughts and beleifs, the fact remains that what they beleive is very real to them and they feel justified.
what can be done to alleviate some of this, more attacks on them make them think even more that they are victims and in the right and we are the aggressor, thus another 4-8 years of what we've had with the Bush regime could further escalate things.
I agree with most of this .... but i personally believe that even if we do what Ron Paul wants us to do and pull all of our troops out of every part of the middle east ...... that we will be attacked again.
The fanatics have twisted the Muslim religion so much that our very existence is an abomination to them.
not really.
its a sticky situation right now though - the amount of animosity from muslims toward christians. and even if we think they are wrong in their thoughts and beleifs, the fact remains that what they beleive is very real to them and they feel justified.
what can be done to alleviate some of this, more attacks on them make them think even more that they are victims and in the right and we are the aggressor, thus another 4-8 years of what we've had with the Bush regime could further escalate things.
But it still remains unsaid. With the first year of the Bush administration came the ultimate escalation. America was not in Iraq when the 1st WTC attack happened. Not when the Khobar Towers attack happened. Not when the embassy bombings happened. Not when the attck on the Cole happened and not when 9/11 happened.
We can't begin our history at 2003, with the invasion of Iraq.
Who wants us in Iraq? Americans? Muslims? Al Qaeda? Who?
Out of that short list, we can probably say America, to some extent. Not the popular poll opinions but decision makers. Are they right? I don't know.
Do Muslims want us in Iraq? Probably not in the Mid East at all, but what could they expect would be the repurcussions of constant attacks on American interests? They should have expected more Americans, but this time with guns and ammo.
This isn't about Bush, he just happens to the dupe this mess falls upon. It started before him and won't be finished in his time either.
But it still remains unsaid. With the first year of the Bush administration came the ultimate escalation. America was not in Iraq when the 1st WTC attack happened. Not when the Khobat Towers attack happened. Not when the embassy bombings happened. Not when the attck on the Cole happened and not when 9/11 happened.
We can't begin our history at 2003, with the invasion of Iraq.
Who wants us in Iraq? Americans? Muslims? Al Qaeda? Who?
Out of that short list, we can probably say America, to some extent. Not the popular poll opinions but decision makers. Are they right? I don't know.
Do Muslims want us in Iraq? Probably not in the Mid East at all, but what could they expect would be the repurcussions of constant attacks on American interests? They should have expected more Americans, but this time with guns and ammo.
This isn't about Bush, he just happens to the dupe this mess falls upon. It started before him and won't be finished in his time either.true. guess when bush got elected they thought, wow look at that goof, now's our chance :p: im not a fan of bush at all (can you tell:D ). But yes you are right.
zrinkill
09-06-2007, 03:34 PM
true. guess when bush got elected they thought, wow look at that goof, now's our chance :p: im not a fan of bush at all (can you tell:D ). But yes you are right.
This has been a good thread .....
true. guess when bush got elected they thought, wow look at that goof, now's our chance :p:...
:lmao:
Garland powerplay
09-07-2007, 12:49 AM
8 years of peace when Clinton was there. Country prospering like never before. Compared to whats going on today , most people would accept a stain on a dress. War , death , destruction , highest deficit in history.
Mexican border opening up. US dollar weakened by the agenda of Washington to globalize. The media creating new fears while stripping citizens of thier rights that many men have died for.
It doesn't get any better than this.
8 years of peace when Clinton was there. Country prospering like never before. Compared to whats going on today , most people would accept a stain on a dress. War , death , destruction , highest deficit in history.
Mexican border opening up. US dollar weakened by the agenda of Washington to globalize. The media creating new fears while stripping citizens of thier rights that many men have died for.
It doesn't get any better than this.
You should talk to some of the family members of the people who'd died during those 8 years of peace. Ignoring constant attacks isn't peace, it's simply ignorance. Ignorance which came to a head with an emboldened enemy that thought the U.S. didn't have the belly for a fight.
Planning and the impression that led to the idea for 9/11 didn't start on 9/10.
burmafrd
09-07-2007, 06:49 AM
The fact is that most muslims are not well educated and thouroughly under the thumb of their religious leaders. Who are all too often intolerant and just as ignorant. Very few muslim countries have a free press or one that tells it like it is. Not much we can do about it. They are going to preach hate for us no matter what. For those that convienently forget, its our CULTURE that supposedly they hate. That is not going to change. Iraq is just an excuse- if not for Iraq they would pick another one. Of course it does not help that most of the worlds press is totally blind to the consequences of their one note always hate USA so called coverage. And I wonder even if they were smart enought to figure it out would they care?
As regards the crusades- that is another problem with all too many: what happened 500 to 700 years ago should NOT matter much TODAY. Its like the Irish in Northern Ireland: a total inability to let go of the past. I will not argue that the Christians cause a lot of pain and trouble- but then look at that period and they were doing pretty much the same thing to THEMSELVES as well. There is a reason it was called the Dark Ages.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.