Well, besides the fact that the crusades were a direct response to the muslim slaughter and conquest of the remnants of the byzantine empire, their slaughter and subjegation of andalusia, and their commencing to attempt the wholesale slaughter and subjegation of the rest of europe?
Pretty much, yeah, you’ve got it right.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
Which do you think had a more lasting effect?
On whom?
The intelligent answer is any lasting effects are part and parcel of both.
The wiser answer still, is that the crusades would not have transpired if the Muslims weren’t butchering and conquering most of Europe.
So then, yeah…
The Muslim barbarity has had the more lasting effect.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
Also, if you are referring to whose barbarity has had the more lasting effect on the world, as a whole, throughout history - the Muslims or the Christians, well, once again - on whom?
The Christians wound up on top, after the aforementioned altercations, due in no small part to the very reason why the Muslim world is still the gutter of ignorance and barbarity that it is - too much in-fighting, and not enough advancement in the realm of thought due to religious constraints.
It is a shame too - the Middle-Eastern world had a brief, shining moment when it could have been the beacon of light for the rest of the world.
Alas, fundamentalist Islam, and The Nonsense of Reason, won out.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
White People.
This discussion that you guys are attempting to have is not something that is worthwhile without citing sources and taking a proper historic perspective on it. People taking turns being dicks to each other is consistent in a lot of places but to try and demonize one over any other group of assholes doesn’t do much except create racism. To say their idea was shittier than any other would have to include a conversation on Spanish conquest, British Imperialism, American westward expansion, Japanese invasion of China and the mess the U.S. has made in various nations.
This is a wholly unproductive conversation in a variety of ways.
tl;dr: Ya’ll niggas are dumb for continuing this line of conversation. Its dangerously Thursty.
Please EDDUR, don’t do this. The violent exploits of Christians are well-documented (Manifest Destiny, Inquisition, etc.) and no one is contesting that fact, the crux of the matter is that Islam was also founded on these principles of conquest through divinity.
Islamic states were great reservoirs of knowledge and ethical judicial practices that the Christian West willfully ignored for over a thousand years. Saladin is considered one of the most noble rulers by even Western monarchies of the time. So this isn’t a discussion about who has done more atrocities in [insert monotheistic diety here]'s name, but an honest discourse on the breadth of Islam’s doctrine.
Except I am providing historical perspective.
White knighting ethical relativity is dumb.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
Precisely.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
The crusades had one goal only which was to recapture Jeruzalem but as history has shown, the European’s nature to conquer as much as possible by force got the best of them. That’s the reason why black Africans believe in a white Jesus. Luckily they had foreseen this in Asia by banning Christians.
We can go on for days but it’s pointless.
Declaring that “well group B also was violent” does not make group A any less violent or excuse their actions. Plus, let’s get accurate about this. The Catholic vs Protestant schism that kicked off the Inquisition and wholesale violence went down right around 1400. As of today, it is over. The Sunni vs Shia schism went down around 600, and the violence and carnage are still going strong today.
And while the crusades were silly, prior to that the Caliphate was all over Europe pulling the same silly stuff. The crusades happened after the Europeans rose up and kick the Moors and or Caliphate groups out of Ibera and other areas.
So railing about the crusades and the inquisition in defense of Islam is very silly.
i think people missed my point. religions evolve and change. the original trinity of desert dogma religions, judaism, christianity, and islam were founded upon violence. and for good reason. i mean, these are a bunch of nomads living in a desert with scarce resources. of COURSE a warlike and xenophobic “us vs them mentality” makes sense. whoever invented monotheism was very smart, it would serve as a strong uniting force.
however, world has changed since then, and those changes have since changed those religions. for example, something like the protestant vs catholic blood letting or the jew hunts wouldn’t really happen today. simply put, western religion has become less and less of a dominant force on white people over the centuries. if somebody denounced jesus a few centuries ago, he’d have been murdered. today, its not a big deal. this is especially true in europe. there are still quite a few nutjobs in the USA, but that too will change as enough time passes.
islam however, hasn’t really changed. the shit they do today is basically the shit they were doing during the middle ages. the three desert dogmas are all built on a foundation of violence, but christianity has evolved into something much more peaceful (with respect to how barbaric it was originally), whereas islam has not.
and don’t give me crap about how those religions are religions of peace. i’ve read the old testemant at least ten times through, and it is a ridiculously barbaric book. and i am slowly working on finishing off the qu’ran, and lemme tell you, that shit reads EXACTLY like I thought it would.
Though CLU 2 has time and time proven to be an unequivocal bigot with regards to Islam, it still amazes me that he actually pulls random facts out of his ass 9 times out of 10 and expects others to believe them, even though they have no solid foundation whatssoever.
If he wasn’t such a retard he’d know that at the time of the first Crusade Europe was in complete ruin. While Europeans were busy slaughtering each other they were living in contradiction of Christian teachings. Yeah, the whole love your neighbour thing doesn’t work out when a good portion of your population makes a living slaughtering each other in a feudal society. Look here:
Peace and Truce of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have to understand the Roman Catholic Church in those days was very different from what we see today. They actually had a lot of power and at the end of the day the Church had its own interests. So why no unite all these knights and murderers under one banner and have them pick up a cause that is win-win for both the Church and feudal Europe.
At the end of the day, the first Crusade was merely a simple solution for exporting violence from the West to the East. After all, it’s always easier to kill someone when you are told that God wills it and that you are killing heretics…:rolleyes:
Careful with the truth around here: it’ll get you in trouble.
History begs to differ. 
But by all means, please, use Christian savagery to defend Muslim savagery.
Your idiocy is awesome.
You yourself and your god… not so much.
[media=youtube]zbk8pq2LroI&feature=relmfu[/media]
:lol: Ladies and gentlemen, this is why the military is quick to diagnose ADHD. Got to have a force that can stay on-task.
When did I defend Muslim “savagery”? Let me(and most of the educated posters here) know when you decide to pull your head out of your ass, though I think that is asking a lot of you.
Javid grouping himself with the educated posters.
And yet he used Wikipedia as a source.
I should tell the Yankees to sign me because I know you have to run the bases counter-clockwise.
Javid grouping himself with the educated posters is like Christian Science grouping itself with physics and chemistry.