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.

 

The truth about the Crusades -Christians Lost.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
What an interesting article and I hope it can be discussed without flames. I thought that I knew what the Crusades were but this article has opened my eyes a bit, especially one of the last paragraphs.

To think that the Crusades were a defensive war? Hmm I had always thought they were to regain the Holy Land, in which the Christian pilgrims were being robbed.

Thats right I knew Saladin let them come and go as they please for religious reasons. I wonder why the muslims can not look for a peaceful leader as I imagine most would deep down prefer.

I have added the last paragraph in which I speak, go read the article though...




Crusade Propaganda -The abuse of Christianitys holy wars.
November 2, 2001

Since September 11 the crusades are news. When President Bush used the term "crusade" as it is commonly used, to denote a grand enterprise with a moral dimension, the media pelted him for insensitivity to Muslims. (Nevermind that the media used the term in precisely the same way before the "gaff.") Attempting to capitalize on this indignation, the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, crowed "President Bush has told the truth that this is a crusade against Islam." Yet clearly the crusades were much on the minds of our enemies long before Bush brought them to their attention. In a 1998 manifesto, cosigned by the leaders of Islamist groups in Egypt, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, Osama bin Laden declared war against the "Jews and the Crusaders." If you didn't guess, the Americans are the crusaders here. On the day the U.S. strikes on Afghanistan began, in a live-from-a-cave address, bin Laden declared Bush to be "the leader of the infidels" in a worldwide war against Islam. He previously warned that "crusader" Bush would lead the infidel forces into Afghanistan "under the banner of the cross."



Which brings us back to the crusades. If the Muslims won the crusades (and they did), why the anger now? Shouldn't they celebrate the crusades as a great victory? Until the nineteenth century that is precisely what they did. It was the West that taught the Middle East to hate the crusades. During the peak of European colonialism, historians began extolling the medieval crusades as Europe's first colonial venture. By the 20th century, when imperialism was discredited, so too were the crusades. They haven't been the same since. In other words, Muslims in the Middle East including bin Laden and his creatures know as little about the real crusades as Americans do. Both view them in the context of the modern, rather than the medieval world. The truth is that the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression. They were a desperate and largely unsuccessful attempt to defend against a powerful enemy.




Crusade Propaganda

[edit on 22-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 22-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 22-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 23-11-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Let me begin with saying Catholicism is not Christianity, never was.

What happened was this: The Vatican was ticked off that the Jews had Jerusalem--they wanted it. So they enlisted Muslims to take Jerusalem from the Jews and hand it over to the Vatican.

The Muslims took Jerusalem and basically flipped the Vatican the finger, calling them and the Jews infidels. That's what started the whole thing.

Also, during the Inquisition, people killed were Jews, BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, and generally anyone else who wouldn't kiss the pope's toe or butt or whatever.

A true Christian would not try to forcibly take a city from another group.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Well Catholism WAS the Christian Church at one time, barring Eastern Orthodox,

Christians as you think of them did not come along until the Reformation.

Good ol Martin Luther.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   
There have always been Bible-believing Christians. The Catholic church was never Christian. For the past couple thousand years the Roman Catholic system has been persecuting true Christians as well as the Jews.

Around 313 A.D. Constantine, who was really the first pope, mixed paganism with Christianity and called it Christianity. Some people, believing the persecution of Christians to be at an end, joined this new religion which evolved into Catholicism. True Christians said no way and went underground.

If you look at Catholic teachings and compare it with the Bible, you'll see major conflicts. Catholic traditions run contrary to Scripture. If the Scripture doesn't agree with what they teach, they discard it.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
PLease understand that I know this, I am not Catholic, but I do consider them my Christian brothers. I am Catholic Lite! Lutheran and a VERY conservative synod at that. I am fully aware of the history of the Church and Constatine and the Council of Nicea.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
What ed singer now you are an expert on religious historical affairs, I think we need Amadeus here to straighten up you, with real facts.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
What ed singer now you are an expert on religious historical affairs, I think we need Amadeus here to straighten up you, with real facts.



And what is so wrong with my post Marg? You would be surprised at what I know about Church history.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
edsinger: I LOVE that phrase "Catholic Lite". Man, that says volumes about the state of religion in our society. Excellent phrase.
I'm Lite too.

As far as the Crusades go, I do a lot of religious/architectural research and it is amazing how little Christians (AND Catholics) know about their own religion. It's quite astounding!

[edit on 23-11-2004 by jupiter869]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
edsinger: I LOVE that phrase "Catholic Lite". Man, that says volumes about the state of religion in our society. Excellent phrase.
I'm Lite too and proud of it.



Yeah I always liked it to. My Catholic friends always got a chuckle also.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

And what is so wrong with my post Marg? You would be surprised at what I know about Church history.


Actually ed been spanish and grown in spanish culture I have to learn about the history of the crusades in my school years due to the fact that the chatholic church had a strong hold of our culture and our ancestry links ot spain.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
How could have anybody "lost" the Crusades? Its still being fought today....



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I beg to bring another note to this.

Few in Christianity, other than the Pope, were concerned with crusades. After the first crusade, from 1095 to 1099, the new kingdom of Jerusalem was largely left to fend off for itself - other than the creation of the Knights Templar in 1118 and the ineffective Second Crusade in the 1140s, the only big effort to save Jerusalem came in the form of the Third Crusade (1191-1194), the goal of which was mainly to stop the infighting between the kings of England and France. Strangely, it didn't result in recapturing Jerusalem. Richard the Lionheart came into view of the city, but turned back.

The Fourth Crusade was a joke. Interestingly, the target ended up NOT being the Muslims... but Constantinople herself. The hapless crusaders toppled the Byzantine dynasty and tried to create a Catholic empire, which lasted 50 years - and had the result of weakening Constantinople and hastening its fall to the Turks.

But the most interesting is to come - during the Sixth Crusade, the Germanic emperor Frederick came to a deal with the Egyptian sultan - which resulted in the Christians owning four cities in Palestine for 10 years. Unfortunately, the idiotic Seventh Crusade weakened that Sultan and got him toppled and replaced by a much harsher, less well-disposed regime.

So if the Christians were indeed desperate, they really had a funny way of showing it.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Actually ed been spanish and grown in spanish culture I have to learn about the history of the crusades in my school years due to the fact that the chatholic church had a strong hold of our culture and our ancestry links ot spain.


Marg - you would be surprised how much of Spanish Culture was received frm the invasion of/and subsequent domination by the Moors and Muslims.

Yep the Crusades were a defensive war, a war that actually ground to a halt not only because of the change of view of Western European society, but as they say it takes two to tango and the Muslim world simply stopped expanding at such a horrific rate. The rulers (Caliphs) became bloated with the available excesses developed in their existing territories and were unwilling to lead their soldiers into expansionist battles. The fundamentalist fervor toward creating more Muslim states had dried up ... at least until now.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Chuck Stevenson]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
"Marg - you would be surprised how much of Spanish Culture was received frm the invasion of/and subsequent domination by the Moors and Muslims."

Yeah they got rice from the arabs that it's.

They didn't become terrorists



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
actually, a lot of Spanish art, especially in places like Cordoba, remained inspired by Moor heritage for a good while. And the Muslims in the ninth and tenth centuries also made advances in science and medicine, which were built upon by Christian scholars and doctors.

i-cias.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The only successful crusade was the first...

The First Crusade was raised by Pope Urban II, responding to the muslims taking Jeruselem in 1095, it ended up being led by Godfroi de Boullion Duke of Lower Lorraine, himself a descendant of the Merovingians/Judeans, became King of Jeruaselem in 1099, founded the Ordre de Sion and died a year later. He was succeeded by his son Baldwin and within ten years the Knights Templars were created, an order who swore allegiance to St Bernard who was related to later Templars leader Hugues de Payens.

The truth behind the crusade was it was a hunt to find the lost treasure of the Temple of Solomon, the copper scroll recovered in 1956 details the locations of a great treasure horde in the underground stables of the Temple, somehow St Bernard and the Flemish royalty had got hold of a similar document a thousand years ago...

In 1127 they found the treasure and the Knights Templars and the Cistercian monks became the richest men in the world...

In 1187 Jeruselem fell to Saladin and but for a few short years in the sixth crusade was lost to the Saracen...

However, the wealth and the knowledge obtained from the Temple hoard allowed the Gothic Notre Dame cathederals of France to be built, as well as 300 Cistercian abbeys, and a European Banking System to be created.

Only the poor Christians lost...it was all about the money....


[edit on 23-11-2004 by Flange Gasket]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
What did you expect?

Back then they only had Knights in Armor.

Today the average Arab can take out an entire Tank column armed with nothing more than a swiss army knife.

The Crusaders never had a chance



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The Crusades are a very complex and complicated subject. You could write several books on the first Crusade alone ( and some have ).
To boil it down to the bare bones, so to speak, we have to look at the Social and Political climate of the time. Europe was a fractious place at best, full of Lords, Barons, Princes and Kings vying with each other for Power, wealth and land. The only thing that they and their people shared was Religion and a belief in God and the Church. From as early as the eighth Century Anglo-Saxon peoples from across Europe had take the Pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The journey could take as long as seven years, a journey full of danger and hardship.
As you would expect quite a few Christians, Catholics as they were then, stayed and built Churches and way stations along the route of Pilgrimage all the way to Jerusalem. The final prize of the Pilgrimage was to pray at the Holy Sepulchre.
All went well with very little interference from the Moors until about 1008-09. The Caliph of Egypt apparently went mad and ordered the Holy Sepulchre destroyed along with any Christian Churches that had been built in the Holy Land. And from then on the Moors made life very difficult indeed for any pilgrims attempting the Journey.
But instead of putting off any would be Pilgrims the situation only seemed to encourage more and more people to take up the Journey to the Holy land, so what started as a trickle of people became a flood.
With rise of the Seljuk ian Turks in the mid 1000's the situation became worse as the Turks went on a Conquest that almost brought down the Byzantine Empire.
The worsening conditions and the danger to Pilgrims came to a head when the Turks took Jerusalem in 1070 soon followed by the fall of Antioch.
As far as the Pope and the Kings of Europe were concerned this state of affairs could not continue so plans were made to take back Jerusalem and open the way again for safe Pilgrimage.

The Crusades didn't just happen, the seeds were sown hundreds of years before they actually happened, tensions had been running high for a long time before the Pope got his act together.
This is just a watered down version of the early History of the Crusades and due to time and space i have left a lot out, but you get the general idea of how it came about. The prize was Jerusalem but also the opening of the route of Pilgrimage was just as important to them.
I would encourage anyone to read about the Crusades, a fascinating time in History that still echo in the Middle East to this day.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
What ed singer now you are an expert on religious historical affairs, I think we need Amadeus here to straighten up you, with real facts.


Marg, that is nothing but baiting and low heat flaming.

If you prefer not to contribute, keep the fingers off the keyboard.

I'm beginning to think you are flirting with Ed, everywhere he goes on this board, you are trying to get his attention!



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Marg, that is nothing but baiting and low heat flaming.If you prefer not to contribute, keep the fingers off the keyboard.I'm beginning to think you are flirting with Ed, everywhere he goes on this board, you are trying to get his attention!


Thomas, she just knows deep down that I am right but does not want to loose face on the board. I mean she has the liberal reputation to uphold to.




Originally posted by Amuk
What did you expect?Back then they only had Knights in Armor.
Today the average Arab can take out an entire Tank column armed with nothing more than a swiss army knife.The Crusaders never had a chance


You seem to have forgotten one critical aspect, the knife must be made of Chinese Steel.







Originally posted by Janus
The prize was Jerusalem but also the opening of the route of Pilgrimage was just as important to them.I would encourage anyone to read about the Crusades, a fascinating time in History that still echo in the Middle East to this day.



What a VERY facinating post.


[edit on 23-11-2004 by edsinger]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join