quote:

And Arabs have unequivocally been for the destruction of the Jewish state since 1948 - you don't see many westerns up in arms about that.

Yeah, uh huh...I suggest you continue working on your great analogies. Hi, My name is Sven, I'm from Sweden, I like pretty blondes, and I really have a strong connection to Israel

quote:

Come on, I know you Arabs like to make things up. But this is absurd coming from someone who claims to be knowledgeable about the subject. The Arab's best buds, yes the very we like to call cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys or others like to call the French, were Israel's only and truest ally till 1967... the USA wasn't selling it any arms then. Guess who was?

Sigh. If France was your ally for less than 20 years, and an ambivalent one at that during that period, but has, over the past 35 years, been OPPOSED to most of your policy, I would HARDLY call them a true ally. At any rate, stop trying to find minute points to dwell on when they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand and you understand exactly the point I'm trying to make. Its petty and exasperating.

quote:

So your trying to tell me Bush isn't worse than Clinton?

In unequivocal support, I mean that they will toe the Israeli line, whatever that may be at the time. Interpreted in that fashion, they are equally bad. However, it does not mean that the policies that were being promulgated by the Israelis under Clinton versus Bush are equivalent...nice try but no cigar

quote:

And all I am saying is how is that justified? Just because some people warp some twisted unlegitimate cause to suit their emotions doesn't make it legitimate. Now does it make there emotions any truer.

You're confusing justified and legitimate. Legitimate grievances are issues that are fundamentally unfair, such as Israeli policies towards Palestinians and US support for them. Now whether you think that a specific action (such as 9/11) is justified based on a legitimate grievance is another story entirely. That does not change the fact that the grievance is legitimate.

The problem that you don't seem to understand is this: A LARGE majority of Arabs and Muslims associate their legitimate grievances with certain actions taken by Al Qaeda. To simplify it for you since you obviously seem discombobulated, i'll say it in less intimidating words for you to comprehend:

Hi, my name is Ali and I live in Gaza. I lost my entire family to an F-16 raid last year...F-16s that were paid for or furnished to the Israelis by the Americans. What's that you're asking? About 9/11 and what I think about it? I think 9/11 is justified because the Americans are actively supporting the killing of innocent people here in Gaza, so they deserve to be killed just like they are doing to us.

Note that a legitimate grievance (Americans supporting the Israeli army in the killing of innocent civilians) is being associated with an action done against America, (whether that action is justifiable or not objectively) and being justified by this person as fair.

quote:

But your argument was that we should reason with him, no? That there must be a legitimate greivance behind the islamo-facists. Perhaps if the USA would be diplomatic, perhaps give up Israel in favor of winning the hearts and minds of the Arab street? Corrupt its well-established morals, traditions, and philosophies of hundreds of years just so it can win some points in the minds of the uneducated Arab masses?

Well-established morals. Alright Yoepus, no need for a reply there. Next.

quote:

Prove it. I don't know of any metrics that measure this objectively. For all I know you might be right, then again you might not be. But perhaps you know of some objective method of measuring this?

Ok, it's decreased.

Here's a good book that actually talks about this in detail. Enjoy.

Beyond Jihad and Crusade

quote:

If one dies when joining/supporting Radical Islam, would that not be a deterent for supporting it? Therefore if one is to use your assumption in the quote above, that Radical Islam "can be quelled as long as there is very little support for it". Can we not follow the following train of logic to Shaka's conclusion? A) ASSUME - People like to live. B) ASSUME - People prefer not to support causes which will kill them. C) EVENT - The USA kills a lot of Radical Islamist and/or their supporters. D) CONCLUDE - Less people will support Radical Islamist or become them because it might be dangerous to their health. E) CONCLUDE - (using your assumption) Radical Islam can be quelled by the USA killing a lot of their activists.

You're truly and veridically an absolute genius. WOW. You never cease to surprise me, post after post. I think you're going to say something ridiculous as usual, but then you blow me away and say something completely and totally absurd. Did you ever consider the fact that these people, the Islamic fundamentalists and their supporters or would be supporters don't give a rat's ass about dying. In fact, it could be argued that they actually WANT to die as martyrs. Anyway, I await your next epiphany.

quote:

What "causes for grievances" are you talking about?

And a HUGE cause at that. But I also mentioned others, but I guess you failed to read them, or take note of them. A perfect example is Iraq, as we speak.

quote:

I'm accusing them of using force for the purpose of controlling oil reserves for vested interests. Those interests are economic in the form of providing US oil firms with new territory to conquer, to continue maintaining Iraqi oil currency in dollars rather than Euros, to insure that the "oil weapon" of Arab states be never used against them as it was in 1973 by king Faisal, and to ensure economic leverage over other states that threaten US interests such as China, France and Russia. Those interests are also geo-political in nature, whether it be for political hegemony or stabilization reasons. I really hope I don't actually have to delve into this any deeper as I'm sure you're not as naive as you're souding right now.

quote:

Right, theres no better way to wage war for profit then throwing away half a trillion out of the treasury and giving it to the Iraqis and Afghanis... Yup! You sure are a sharp one alright!

Excuse me while I bow down in front of your glowing aura, oh sharpest one of all Let me again help you with this, slowly but surely. Corporations. War. Put them together and you'll understand the point that I'm trying to make.

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

Anyway Yoepus, when you have something interesting to say, or some other brilliant ideas, let me know.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Its not just the Arab world and its not just America. Poverty and a general lack of wealth compared to the civilisation

Nations being poor is not the fault of the West. The reasons most nations are poor is because they can not develop wealth (i.e. they are uneducated) not that the west is stealing their wealth.

Just because one is rich and one is poor, does not mean the rich stole form the poor, or that they were ever equal financially.

quote:

As leader of the Western world, and with its hawkish views, America bears the brunt of this anger (especially when twisted around an ideology that is fundamentally against America due to Israel, troops in the Holy Lands, etc) Poverty and globalisation are legitimate concerns and are issues that need resolving or else I predict we will see huge swathes of non-Muslims taking up the fight against the West to reclaim the wealth that is stolen from them (and maybe there would be justification there?)

As you point out a little.. there hasn't been anyone else all up and arms about being poor. Subsaharan Africa hasn't produce one bombing to my recollection these past 50 years against US land or war.

quote:

I think its more to do with the fact that the Arab world, or more correctly the Islamic World as whole has its religion as the rallying call whereas these other areas dont have that. Still, they have all been fucked up the arse by America just as much!

I don't know if it is the religion, but is defintely the culture.
Still saying its "because of the culture" doesn't really garner the insight I'm looking for.

quote:

Well obviously after 11/9 we have the killing of 1000s of Muslims but you quite slyly stook "pre-9/11"

Well of course I'm a sly guy

But the pre-9/11 clause is important, because it shapes someones philosophy of the situation. If you believe like me - that there is no comprehensible reason for people to fly planes with people into buildings with people - it shapes your world view to one that is more hawkish. If however you believe that you can 'understand' or see how someone might have some legitimate grievances, alebit in a twisted mind, for flying planes with people into buildings with people - it shapes your world view to one that is more compasionate.

When it boils down to it the core difference between my world view and your or epicurus' is that I believe there can be bad evil people in this world and lots of them, and you guys can't don't (because you want to examine it through their perspective or throught different light.. whatever it is... )

quote:

It is just as valid to ask why Europeans dont sympathise with America and the answer will probably be similar - they may just disagree with American beliefs and ideals (the ones they impose on the rest of the world, not the ones their citizens at home enjoy!)

The difference is I know why Europeans don't sympathize with America, and I can understand that (see: Of Power and Paradise by Robert Kagan), I still can't understand the real reason, the core, not of why Islamo-facist are they way they are, that I know, but why they garner such sympathy and support from the masses in the Arab world.

quote:

The death penalty in America has had no affect on crime

I'm not killing anyone in Texas! thats for sure! even if I really, really wanted too...

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Yeah, uh huh...I suggest you continue working on your great analogies. Hi, My name is Sven, I'm from Sweden, I like pretty blondes, and I really have a strong connection to Israel

What you didn't like that one?

It illustrates my point clearly though: Israel is not the REASON for Arab hatered of the West.

If your claim is that people have grievances against an enemy's ally there is your proof against it.

quote:

Sigh. If France was your ally for less than 20 years, and an ambivalent one at that during that period, but has, over the past 35 years, been OPPOSED to most of your policy, I would HARDLY call them a true ally. At any rate, stop trying to find minute points to dwell on when they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand and you understand exactly the point I'm trying to make. Its petty and exasperating.

Look I'll drop the point because I agree with your conclusion, but France was a good ally at the time. They just at the end of the day are what you'd call the epitome of the self-interest.

quote:

Now whether you think that a specific action (such as 9/11) is justified based on a legitimate grievance is another story entirely. That does not change the fact that the grievance is legitimate.

I'm not passing judgement on grievances right now. I'm trying to understand what are the grievances (excluding Israel and pre-911) that the Arabs had with the USA?

quote:

The problem that you don't seem to understand is this: A LARGE majority of Arabs and Muslims associate their legitimate grievances with certain actions taken by Al Qaeda.

I understand this perfectly. What I don't understand is their grievances.

quote:

Hi, my name is Ali and I live in Gaza.

Could you come up with a non-Palestinian analogy for me?

I get the Palestinian grievance - I want the others.
Or are you telling me that the only grievance the Arabs have with the USA is the fact that they like Israel more than the Palestinians?

quote:

Note that a legitimate grievance (Americans supporting the Israeli army in the killing of innocent civilians) is being associated with an action done against America, (whether that action is justifiable or not objectively) and being justified by this person as fair.

Yup I understand this - but then again you don't see an Israeli pissed off at the Russians for supplying the Palestinians with AK47s, or an Israeli angry at God for supplying them with rocks...
Nor do you see angry Arabs protesting Germany for supplying Israel with tank parts and arms.

I don't believe in your rational that Arabs are anti-America because they are anti-Israel. I believe it is a matter of convience to associate the two. They are already anti-America and already anti-Israel, so playing one off the other is easy - not necessarily that one causes another.

But thats beside the point and why I want to avoid the issue... anything ASIDE from the Israel-support grievance?

quote:

Ok, it's decreased.

Just because troops are in Iraq now and terrorist have easy access to Americans does not necissarily mean there are more terrorist.

quote:

You're truly and veridically an absolute genius. WOW.

Thank you I amaze even myself sometimes.

quote:

Did you ever consider the fact that these people, the Islamic fundamentalists and their supporters or would be supporters don't give a rat's ass about dying. In fact, it could be argued that they actually WANT to die as martyrs. Anyway, I await your next epiphany.

Look I am well aware that radical islamist are quiet willing to die. There supporters are a different matter. Based on the wars Arabs have fought with the west they aren't very keen to die. Their officers and soldiers either surrender or desert in droves. You guys like life - a lot. I think this might be a reaosn why the culture gets more emotional than others over death... but I'm to lazy to develop that further.

quote:

And a HUGE cause at that. But I also mentioned others, but I guess you failed to read them, or take note of them. A perfect example is Iraq, as we speak.

I might have failed to notice them, if so just resound them.
The example below is post-911. I'm looking for pre-911 grievances that aren't related to Israel.

quote:

Put them together and you'll understand the point that I'm trying to make. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

I understand your point. I don't agree with it.
And if you believe I'll read anything from those hogwash sites and take it credibly then you have overestimated my extremism.

The book looked good though...

quote:

Anyway Yoepus, when you have something interesting to say, or some other brilliant ideas, let me know.

I always have brilliant ideas. But I'm just looking for grievances...

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

What you didn't like that one? It illustrates my point clearly though: Israel is not the REASON for Arab hatered of the West. If your claim is that people have grievances against an enemy's ally there is your proof against it.

Yoepus. Common man, I know you're smarter than that. I guess I'll explain my point again, more explicitly. My point was that "westerns", as you call them, in LARGE majority, if not fully, do not have a strong connection to Israel. As opposed to a LARGE majority of Arabs and Muslims, who have a strong connection to Palestine. Thus, the reason why your analogy is extremely weak and you haven't shown anything is because you're comparing apples and oranges.

quote:

I don't believe in your rational that Arabs are anti-America because they are anti-Israel. I believe it is a matter of convience to associate the two. They are already anti-America and already anti-Israel, so playing one off the other is easy - not necessarily that one causes another.

I'm sorry Yoepus, but if you don't see this, I really can't help you solve this problem. I don't know if you're ever been to the Arab world, but I assure you that Anti-Americanism in that region is in LARGE part due to the US's policies with regards to the Palestine-Israeli conflict. If you choose not to believe me, then so be it.

quote:

Look I am well aware that radical islamist are quiet willing to die. There supporters are a different matter. Based on the wars Arabs have fought with the west they aren't very keen to die. Their officers and soldiers either surrender or desert in droves. You guys like life - a lot. I think this might be a reaosn why the culture gets more emotional than others over death... but I'm to lazy to develop that further.

You're confusing things again. What you're referring to has nothing to do with radical Islamists. What Arab wars have been faught against the West under the banner of radical Islam, the same radical Islam that we are currently talking about? Please enlighten me. I agree that those wars that Arabs have faught recently in leave a lot to be desired, but they were faught under the rubrique of nationalism, pan-arabism or what have you. Religion is a different beast.

quote:

And if you believe I'll read anything from those hogwash sites and take it credibly then you have overestimated my extremism.

I apologize. I didn't know you were a moderate extremist.

quote:

I always have brilliant ideas. But I'm just looking for grievances...

I'm sure you do. Anyway, although I hate quoting Bernard Lewis simply because he's an Orientalist, I've posted a link to an essay he wrote a while back that I tend to agree with to a very small extent, that small extent being the following:

quote:

This raises another issue. Increasingly in recent decades, Middle Easterners have articulated a new grievance against American policy: not American complicity with imperialism or with Zionism but something nearer home and more immediate—American complicity with the corrupt tyrants who rule over them. For obvious reasons, this particular complaint does not often appear in public discourse. Middle Eastern governments, such as those of Iraq, Syria, and the Palestine Authority, have developed great skill in controlling their own media and manipulating those of Western countries. Nor, for equally obvious reasons, is it raised in diplomatic negotiation. But it is discussed, with increasing anguish and urgency, in private conversations with listeners who can be trusted, and recently even in public. (Interestingly, the Iranian revolution of 1979 was one time when this resentment was expressed openly. The Shah was accused of supporting America, but America was also attacked for imposing an impious and tyrannical leader as its puppet.) Almost the entire Muslim world is affected by poverty and tyranny. Both of these problems are attributed, especially by those with an interest in diverting attention from themselves, to America—the first to American economic dominance and exploitation, now thinly disguised as "globalization"; the second to America's support for the many so-called Muslim tyrants who serve its purposes. Globalization has become a major theme in the Arab media, and it is almost always raised in connection with American economic penetration. The increasingly wretched economic situation in most of the Muslim world, relative not only to the West but also to the tiger economies of East Asia, fuels these frustrations. American paramountcy, as Middle Easterners see it, indicates where to direct the blame and the resulting hostility. There is some justice in one charge that is frequently levelled against the United States: Middle Easterners increasingly complain that the United States judges them by different and lower standards than it does Europeans and Americans, both in what is expected of them and in what they may expect—in terms of their financial well-being and their political freedom. They assert that Western spokesmen repeatedly overlook or even defend actions and support rulers that they would not tolerate in their own countries. As many Middle Easterners see it, the Western and American governments' basic position is: "We don't care what you do to your own people at home, so long as you are coöperative in meeting our needs and protecting our interests." The most dramatic example of this form of racial and cultural arrogance was what Iraqis and others see as the betrayal of 1991, when the United States called on the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam Hussein. The rebels of northern and southern Iraq did so, and the United States forces watched while Saddam, using the helicopters that the ceasefire agreement had allowed him to retain, bloodily suppressed them, group by group. The reasoning behind this action—or, rather, inaction—is not difficult to see. Certainly, the victorious Gulf War coalition wanted a change of government in Iraq, but they had hoped for a coup d'état, not a revolution. They saw a genuine popular uprising as dangerous—it could lead to uncertainty or even anarchy in the region. A coup would be more predictable and could achieve the desired result—the replacement of Saddam Hussein by another, more amenable tyrant, who could take his place among America's so-called allies in the coalition. The United States' abandonment of Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviets was understood in much the same way as its abandonment of the Iraqi rebels. Another example of this double standard occurred in the Syrian city of Hama and in refugee camps in Sabra and Shatila. The troubles in Hama began with an uprising headed by the radical group the Muslim Brothers in 1982. The government responded swiftly. Troops were sent, supported by armor, artillery, and aircraft, and within a very short time they had reduced a large part of the city to rubble. The number killed was estimated, by Amnesty International, at somewhere between ten thousand and twenty-five thousand. The action, which was ordered and supervised by the Syrian President, Hafiz al-Assad, attracted little attention at the time, and did not prevent the United States from subsequently courting Assad, who received a long succession of visits from American Secretaries of State James Baker, Warren Christopher, and Madeleine Albright, and even from President Clinton. It is hardly likely that Americans would have been so eager to propitiate a ruler who had perpetrated such crimes on Western soil, with Western victims. The massacre of seven hundred to eight hundred Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila that same year was carried out by Lebanese militiamen, led by a Lebanese commander who subsequently became a minister in the Syrian-sponsored Lebanese government, and it was seen as a reprisal for the assassination of the Lebanese President Bashir Gemayyel. Ariel Sharon, who at the time commanded the Israeli forces in Lebanon, was reprimanded by an Israeli commission of inquiry for not having foreseen and prevented the massacre, and was forced to resign from his position as Minister of Defense. It is understandable that the Palestinians and other Arabs should lay sole blame for the massacre on Sharon. What is puzzling is that Europeans and Americans should do the same. Some even wanted to try Sharon for crimes against humanity before a tribunal in Europe. No such suggestion was made regarding either Saddam Hussein or Hafiz al-Assad, who slaughtered tens of thousands of their compatriots. It is easy to understand the bitterness of those who see the implication here. It was as if the militia who had carried out the deed were animals, not accountable by the same human standards as the Israelis. Thanks to modern communications, the people of the Middle East are increasingly aware of the deep and widening gulf between the opportunities of the free world outside their borders and the appalling privation and repression within them. The resulting anger is naturally directed first against their rulers, and then against those whom they see as keeping those rulers in power for selfish reasons. It is surely significant that most of the terrorists who have been identified in the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington come from Saudi Arabia and Egypt—that is, from countries whose rulers are deemed friendly to the United States.

Rest of article that I assume you might like:
Bernard Lewis

Anyway, I'm off to actually do some work. Yes, on Friday night. Sucks to be me. We'll continue this at some later point in time.

Islam must be transformed or destroyed, and I know just the revolutionary to do it!

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

this goes out to u generalizing islam haters:

i shit on this thread

___________________
Buying trance is a lot like buying a car. Don`t buy American.

quote:

Originally posted by kamil this goes out to u generalizing islam haters: i shit on this thread

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Nations being poor is not the fault of the West. The reasons most nations are poor is because they can not develop wealth (i.e. they are uneducated) not that the west is stealing their wealth.

Yes it is the fault of the West! Its our companies that make the populations work in shit jobs for shit pay, and then make them watch as they make trillions from their hard work...

quote:

As you point out a little.. there hasn't been anyone else all up and arms about being poor. Subsaharan Africa hasn't produce one bombing to my recollection these past 50 years against US land or war.

They haven't taken up arms but they still have exactly the same greviences and I expect them to take up arms soon as soon as they have some kind of unifying factor the rally round like the Islamic militants have their religion (in the African case it is likely to be some form of Marxism/Anarchism)

quote:

But the pre-9/11 clause is important, because it shapes someones philosophy of the situation. If you believe like me - that there is no comprehensible reason for people to fly planes with people into buildings with people - it shapes your world view to one that is more hawkish. If however you believe that you can 'understand' or see how someone might have some legitimate grievances, alebit in a twisted mind, for flying planes with people into buildings with people - it shapes your world view to one that is more compasionate. When it boils down to it the core difference between my world view and your or epicurus' is that I believe there can be bad evil people in this world and lots of them, and you guys can't don't (because you want to examine it through their perspective or throught different light.. whatever it is... )

Dont get me wrong, I think if there is such a thing as evil then in my interpretation of that concept 11/9 would fit my criteria. But evil is not the point and clouds the objective. The objective is to stop them doing 'evil'. The only way to do that is to understand why people are attracted to the al-Qaida ideology and that is something I have been trying to explain to you for a good few posts now!!! It is for very similar reasons why we saw Marxist revolutions in third world countries over the last centuries. Where Marxism offers an answer to the current political system that just isn't working, political Islam offers the same answer but a different alternative political system. Marxism claims everything will be ok and we will prosper under a communist society, political Islam states we will be ok and prosper under the Shariat (Islamic law). The militant political Islamists (like those following the al-Qaida ideology) join because they believe, like Marxists, that their vision of a new society will put right all the injustices of their current society (poverty, corrupt governments, lack of wealth and oppertunities, etc, etc) But where they differ from Marxism is religion. They are doing it for God. That is why they can justify killing innocents (kafr) That is why they not only are prepared to kill themselves but actually want to. So, how do you make this ideology unatractive? If you have ever read about any of the profiles of these people you quickly realise that they have become mixed up in al-Qaida due to dissapointment and humiliation. This stems from the lack of oppertunities after they graduated from university. They want to be like us in the West with our MTV, our DVD players and all the sex we have (well...!) But they find that this is not available to them. No jobs, no money, not attractive to any woman! So they turn to Islam and reject the life they saught viewing it as immoral and wrong (jealousy). But there is so much anger that pushes them in to the arms of bin Laden. Now that is an explanation of the educated ones. Most of the new ones are just poor full stop and easier to explain. They just dont like being poor! Then you get the same amount of anger pushing them towards radicalisation.

Whats the answer? Well that would seem obvious no? Take away the percieved injustices in their society yep? Poverty, globalisation are the issues we need to tackle. Radical political Islamists, or Islamo-Fascists to give them your term, are not born - they are made. Sure, we need to take the current ones out, but if by doing so we only create another 2 to take his place we are losing. We cannot just do this militarily. It has to be a multi pronged attack on all aspects of radical Islam...

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf There's no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Their immediate goal is to conquer Europe, and then to destroy the West.

I find it hilarious that you never replied to that post in which I proved you wrong. Instead, you open new threads in other forums. heh.

Prejudices don't even need to be reformed - all it needs is elimination.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I find it hilarious that you never replied to that post in which I proved you wrong. Instead, you open new threads in other forums. heh. Prejudices don't even need to be reformed - all it needs is elimination.

The one where you said the Crusades had nothing to do with Muslim conquest?

Jerusalem was the head of the beast: cut off the head and the rest of the Muslim empire would fall apart.

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf The one where you said the Crusades had nothing to do with Muslim conquest? Jerusalem was the head of the beast: cut off the head and the rest of the Muslim empire would fall apart.

So now Jerusalem is "the head" of the Muslim "beast" or have I understood something wrong? Didn't you claim the crusades were defensive? Even if it were a counter-attack, the Moors invaded Spain in 711, the First Crusade was in 1095 (a bit slow, weren't they?). Let's face it, it was a political war of Rome trying to show Bizancyum who was more powerful. Have you read the history of Jerusalem?. When the first crusade arrived, they killed Jewish inhabitants as well (and they were welcomed by Bizantyum Christians), so it wasn't a war against "Muslims".

No need to repeat what I had already said:

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf The Crusades were defensive. The Muslims invaded Europe, and we formed a coalition of the willing to strike at the heart of the enemy. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6981/defense.htm

Fancy reading a bit in a source that is not religious?

I'm gonna give you two different sources, so you can't complain about bias:

• Worldhistory.com: http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_...usades_www.html
  
• Wikipedia.com: Can't be iframed
  

Origin of Crusades:

quote:

Worldhistory.com The Crusader movement was evoked by the advance of the Seljuk Turks, who had taken Jerusalem from the Fatimid caliphs of Egypt and decisively defeated the Byzantine army in the battle of Manzikert. Alarmed the Byzantine emperor appealed to Rome for help which presented the pope with a golden opportunity to reassert his supremacy over the eastern Church which had broken away from Rome in AD 1054. At the same time pilgrimages to Jerusalem had encountered increased hostility from the Seljuks which led Pope Urban II to preach a Holy War against the heathens.

The crusades started because they wanted to get Jerusalem back, claming it was their holy land. The Byzantine Empire (which controlled Jerusalem before the Turks invaded it) was a dissidence of the Roman Empire, which invaded lands around the Mediterranean - Egypt, Turkey, Israel and so on. Logically, if these lands were invaded and became rightfully theirs, it means anyone else who invaded these lands could claim property over them. By the way, the Arabs invaded Palestine in the 7th century (and the first crusade happened 3 centuries later), so it's not like "they had just got there".

quote:

Wikipedia.com The origins of the crusades lie in developments earlier in the Middle Ages. The breakdown of the Carolingian empire in the later 9th century, combined with the relative stabilization of local European borders after the Christianization of the Vikings, Slavs and Magyars, meant that there was an entire class of warriors who now had very little to do but fight among themselves and terrorize the peasant population. The Church tried to stem this violence with the Peace and Truce of God movements, forbidding violence against certain people at certain times of the year. This was somewhat successful, but trained warriors always needed an outlet for their violence. One such outlet was the Reconquista in Spain, which at times occupied Spanish knights and some mercenaries from elsewhere in Europe in the fight aganist the Islamic Moors. In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given papal blessing to Spanish Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle. This background in the Christian west must be matched with that in the Muslim east. Muslim presence in the Holy Land goes back to the initial Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century. This did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites or the security of monasteries and Christian communities in the Holy Land of Christendom, and western Europeans were not much concerned with the loss of far-away Jerusalem when, in the ensuing decades and centuries, they were themselves faced with invasions by Muslims and other hostile non-Christians such as the Vikings and Magyars. However, a turning point in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it under stringent circumstances, and pilgrimage was again permitted, but many stories began to be circulated in the West about the cruelty of the Muslims toward Christian pilgrims, which played an important role in the development of the crusades later in the century

So we had Moors, Magyars and Vikings attacking Europe. The Moors were in Morocco, which had already been invaded by the Roman Empire. Once again, if their territory was invaded, it's fair they invade lands from the former Roman Empire back. Now, let's take a look at the Magyars:

quote:

The centuries between the Magyars arriving from the eastern European plains and the consolidation of the Hungarian Kingdom in 1001 were dominated by pillaging campaigns across Europe, from Dania (Denmark) to the Hispanic peninsula (Spain).

As you can see, they too attacked attacked Western Europe, and they were originally by the Crimea Peninsula, had Turkic-Mongolian heritage and were accepted in Europe simply because they accepted Christianism afterwards. Where was the coalition against them before the conversion? In case you're curious, here are some crusades against other invaders. I'm short of time, so I won't bother about the Vikings.

After reading this and the previous paragraphs, we can conclude that there was a huge political reason behind the creation of the crusades (which was far from "defending Europe"). Let's carry on:

quote:

Wikipedia First Crusade After Byzantine emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks, in 1095 Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, a war which would count as full penance. Crusader armies marched up towards Jerusalem, sacking several cities on their way. In 1099, they took Jerusalem, massacring the Muslim population. As a result of the First Crusade, several small Crusader states were created, notably the Kingdom of Jerusalem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

Compare it with the info provided by Worldhistory.com and you'll see this was a rather political decision from the pope as he wanted to show Rome was stronger than Byzancium. Once again, Jerusalem is not in Europe, so it wasn't for the defense of that continent.

quote:

Wikipedia Second Crusade After a period of relative peace, in which Christians and Muslims co-existed in the Holy Land, Bernard of Clairvaux called for a new crusade when the town of Edessa was conquered by the Turks. French and German armies marched to Asia Minor in 1147, but failed to accomplish any major successes, and indeed endangered the survival of the Crusader states with a foolish attack on Damascus. In 1149, both leaders had returned to their countries without any result.

Edessa was in Mesopotamia - it's not Europe either.

quote:

Wikipedia Third Crusade In 1187, Saladin recaptured Jerusalem. Pope Gregory VIII preached a crusade, which was led by several of Europe's most important leaders: Richard I of England, Philip II of France and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. Frederick drowned in Cilicia in 1190, leaving an unstable alliance between the English and the French. Philip left in 1191 after the Crusaders had recaptured Acre from the Muslims, while Richard left the following year after establishing a truce with Saladin.

I can't be arsed to say once again where Jerusalem is located.

quote:

Wikipedia Fourth Crusade The Fourth Crusade was initiated by Pope Innocent III in 1202, with the intention of invading the Holy Land through Egypt. The Venetians gained control of this crusade and diverted it to Constantinople where they attempted to place a Byzantine exile on the throne. After a series of misunderstandings and outbreaks of violence the city was sacked in 1204. The popular spirit of the movement was now dead, and the succeeding crusades are to be explained rather as arising from the Papacy's struggle to divert the military energies of the European nations toward Syria.

They were now fighting the Empire that invited them

quote:

Wikipedia Fifth Crusade By processions, prayers, and preaching, the Church attempted to set another crusade on foot, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) formulated a plan for the recovery of the Holy Land. A crusading force from Hungary, Austria, and Bavaria achieved a remarkable feat in the capture of Damietta in Egypt in 1219, but under the urgent insistence of the papal legate, Pelagius, they proceeded to a foolhardy attack on Cairo, and an inundation of the Nile compelled them to choose between surrender and destruction.

Because Cairo is an important European city, after all, isn't it?

quote:

Wikipedia Sixth Crusade In 1228, Emperor Frederick II set sail from Brindisi for Syria, though laden with the papal excommunication. Through diplomacy he achieved unexpected success, Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem being delivered to the Crusaders for a period of ten years. This was the first major crusade not initiated by the Papacy, a trend that was to continue for the rest of the century.

Funny how, without the church, he managed to have these territories delivered by diplomacy, eh?

quote:

Wikipedia Seventh Crusade The papal interests represented by the Templars brought on a conflict with Egypt in 1243, and in the following year a Korasmian force summoned by the latter stormed Jerusalem. Although this provoked no widespread outrage in Europe as fall of Jerusalem in 1187 had done, Louis IX of France organized a crusade against Egypt from 1248 to 1254, leaving from the newly constructed port of Aigues-Mortes in southern France. It was a failure and Louis spent much of the crusade living at the court of the Crusader kingdom in Acre.

pfftt...

quote:

Wikipedia Eighth Crusade The eighth Crusade was organized by Louis IX in 1270, again sailing from Aigues-Mortes, initially to come to the aid of the remnants of the Crusader states in Syria. However, the crusade was diverted to Tunis, where Louis spent only two months before dying.

Get a map and check where Syria is and where Tunis is. Far, isn't it?

quote:

Wikipedia Ninth Crusade The future Edward I of England undertook another expedition in 1271, after having accompanied Louis on the Eighth Crusade. He accomplished very little in Syria and retired the following year after a truce. With the fall of Antioch (1268), Tripoli (1289), and Acre (1291) the last traces of the Christian occupation of Syria disappeared.

Kay, this was the last Crusade and I still haven't found "the defense of Europe", have you?

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Yoepus. Common man, I know you're smarter than that. I guess I'll explain my point again, more explicitly. My point was that "westerns", as you call them, in LARGE majority, if not fully, do not have a strong connection to Israel. [quote]As opposed to a LARGE majority of Arabs and Muslims, who have a strong connection to Palestine.

Why do you think this is? Why is there such a strong connection between Arabs and Muslims to Palestine?

On the flip-side why do you think there isn't such a strong connection between the west and Israel?

quote:

I don't know if you're ever been to the Arab world, but I assure you that Anti-Americanism in that region is in LARGE part due to the US's policies with regards to the Palestine-Israeli conflict.

No, I've never been to the Arab world, you see I'm not a big fan of endangering my life pointlessly. That is of course assuming I could get there first...

Anyway, I don't doubt that the anti-american sentiment has been exemplified by the USA's association with Israel, but as I pointed out earlier I don't believe this is the cause of the anti-american sentiment.

Take the recent example of US-French relations. The USA hate the French. And they hated them even more when some nazi/arabs/vandals/whatever they were but swastikas on the grave's of their WWII soldiers over there. The US hate wasn't caused because of the French vandalizing their grave and the memory of the vast USA contribution to France's existances, but it did exemplify the hatered. Had the USA and France been at good relations the opposite might of happened from such an incident - the realization of a true friendship and a core to beat out extremists.

The USA - French tension was not cause because of French irrespect for USA sacrafise in WWII. It was caused because the French diverge in philosophy from the USA in the realm of international politics.

Now again you can look at the Israel-French relations. The Arabs rarely if ever critizes France for selling Israel weapons (why? I'd say because they have good relationship with them) nor critize Germany for selling Israel weapons. They will critize India however for buying Israeli weapons. They don't seem to mind if China buys them however.

Now this is just one type of example - there our hundreds more of these that have shaped my opinion on the matter to believe that the Israeli issue is not the cause of USA hatered. Israel didn't start the fire of USA hate in the Arab world. But it does add fuel.

If you already don't like the USA, you can justify the reason you don't like them even further by saying they sell Israel weapons.

Just like if I don't like the French, I can easily justify the reason I don't like them is because they hate-Jews and insult the Americans... This is of course easier to say then specifically pointing out thd diverging philosophies of world views and how France believes that USA foreign policy will harm its self-interest, etc...

quote:

You're confusing things again. What you're referring to has nothing to do with radical Islamists. What Arab wars have been faught against the West under the banner of radical Islam, the same radical Islam that we are currently talking about? Please enlighten me.

If you will, both the Balkan conflict, the Checyen conflict, the Leabonese - Israel border conflict, and the current Israel - Palestine war could serve as examples of Arabs wars against the west under the banner of raidcal Islam.

However, these aren't the wars I was reffering too. The point here is that in these wars the fighters would not exist without the support of the masses. And it is these very masses that value their lives, not the radicals. The idea is to stop the masses from thinking they want to be radical, or suporting the radicals.

quote:

I agree that those wars that Arabs have faught recently in leave a lot to be desired, but they were faught under the rubrique of nationalism, pan-arabism or what have you. Religion is a different beast.

I think its the same war, different method.

quote:

I apologize. I didn't know you were a moderate extremist.

Apology accepted

quote:

I'm sure you do. Anyway, although I hate quoting Bernard Lewis simply because he's an Orientalist, I've posted a link to an essay he wrote a while back that I tend to agree with to a very small extent, that small extent being the following

I won't address this in this post, as it basically brings up the point that Georgey makes in the post below. That the primary reason the Arab hate the USA is because of economic/political suppression from the West.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.