It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video: Raya ul-Bayinah, the Reemergence Of The Crusaders *graphic*

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I don't believe this is a crusade but the people who put together this video do.

The video is well edited and includes footage of Americans, including Bush, talking about Muslims and the war between good and evil. It includes war footage and footage of insurgent attacks. No beheadings but there are scenes of dead bodies as well as injured persons near the end.

Judging from the footage, it was produced either in November or December of this year.

I found it to be worth watching, not sure if the rest of you will like it or not but it should at least give you some insight into their view of the war.

IraqCrusade link1
IraqCrusade link2
IraqCrusade link3
IraqCrusade link4

(all links have the same content, multiple links are in case one goes down)








posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:33 AM
link   
'Nearly a century on from teh first crusade of jerusalem"
Its been quite a bit more than a century

"emerges a new crusade with the same intentions and convictions"
Since the pope hasn't called for a crusade, the war on terror is not one. Futhermore, any 'crusade' today would be a war against the state of Israel, to get christian authority over the holy land. Thats what the crusades became, wars to control the holy land.

"under the old banner of the cross"
Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and othr non christians are fighting on the side of the west in these Terror Wars, and the christians aren't fighting under any papal banner nor any other religious authority.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Well, as nygdan said, this thing is full of inaccuracies.

If you read anything about the crusades (which by the way were more Middle Ages and certainly no 100 years ago), you will find that quite simply their cause was to redeem the holy land from non-christians. How anyone can relate this to Afghanistan or Iraq is beyond me as those are not the lands that were involved in the Crusades.

Perhaps calling it a crusade that has nothing to do with the earlier crusades would be more accurate?



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

The Real History of the Crusades
Crisis Magazine ^ | 4/1/2002 | Thomas Madden








posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
'Nearly a century on from teh first crusade of jerusalem"
Its been quite a bit more than a century


I think they're referring to the war against the Ottoman Empire in 1917, which was followed by the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.


[edit on 19-12-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Yeesh, why can't they just call it "World War One" eh?

I guess that makes sense, they couldn't have been that stupid as to think the actual crusades were only a hundred years ago. But, if anything, this almost reveals a greater stupidity, the First World War wasn't a war of the west against islam, the Central Powers only had one islamic nation as part of it. And the Ottoman Empire was a traditional Muslim empire, but not really like some of these modern 'islamic republics' like taliban afghanistan and the like.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join