Your thoughts on the Crusades?

Dec 2012
554
34
United States
You've yet to explain how Islam got into the Orient (or the Americas for that matter) with no army and yet was 'spread by the sword'.
Reason 1) I was speaking to the expansion of Islam...by the sword, prior to the Christian Crusades that is the topic of this thread.

Reason 2) I addressed content in the Iraq thread as well when you mistakenly opined that Iraq was irrelevant to al-Qaeda and you disappeared really fast. I thought addressing facts and figures might scare some observers away here as well.
 
Dec 2012
554
34
United States
As to how it came to America, many religions sought refuge and freedom to practice here in this country. I assume Islam like many other religions wasn't persecuted here....and thus prospered.

Are you in denial that they slaughtered their way through North Africa and Spain? That they were very much part of and profited off the slave trade? What is it you're haing trouble with here?
 
Jul 2009
5,816
446
Opa Locka
Reason 1) I was speaking to the expansion of Islam...by the sword, prior to the Christian Crusades that is the topic of this thread.

Reason 2) I addressed content in the Iraq thread as well when you mistakenly opined that Iraq was irrelevant to al-Qaeda and you disappeared really fast. I thought addressing facts and figures might scare some observers away here as well.
And yet, without conquering the place, Islam spread to the Orient. Explain this if you can or consider that your full of crap.

I didn't mistake anything, the thread was about the war and when I pointed out that AQ was irreverent you started talking about the occupation hopping nobody would notice. Thus off topic, the thread died and now you're acting like I retreated for not posting in a dead thread.

You really need to work on your trolling techniques. :p
 
Dec 2012
121
5
space
A Godless one.



My examples must span history to be accurate, yes?



Arab nations and empires enslaves blacks and many more, are you taking credit for your ancestry as well?



What is? And you did colonize, would you like me to find you a link?



So.....Faulting others for 'colonization' and accusing of 'destroying cultural heritage' is this disappointing "still think" you're speaking to?



Who supported Islams trek across Africa and into western Europe?



To the victor go the spoils, Sir.
do you think ancient turks didnt have a god belief :)
 
Dec 2012
554
34
United States
And yet, without conquering the place, Islam spread to the Orient. Explain this if you can or consider that your full of crap.

I didn't mistake anything, the thread was about the war and when I pointed out that AQ was irreverent you started talking about the occupation hopping nobody would notice. Thus off topic, the thread died and now you're acting like I retreated for not posting in a dead thread.

You really need to work on your trolling techniques. :p
http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv2.html

The thread was about the war and included reasons we were attacked on 9-11 and your exact statement was Iraq was irrelevant to al-Qaeda. I showed you that absolutely false and you vacated the thread. Good move, btw.

I'm reading through the slaughter and conquered Byzantines and Romans and Persians and nearly Christian cultures and thinking China was probably influenced via trade routes and roads integrating with western Chinese. It is a fact Islam's meteroic rise was without precedence, it is true it came in large part under the sword. They simply killed millions in invading other cultures.......Charles Martel winning perhaps the most influential battle in western civilization's history. He doesn't stop the Muslim army that day, say he is killed (often how battles ended in this day, the Moslem King was killed ending this one) and you and I probably don't speak english today.

Stating fact, you can find this in any history book, you can even Google it.
 
Dec 2012
554
34
United States
do you think ancient turks didnt have a god belief :)
I never even approached the beliefs 'god' or otherwise of ' ancient Turks.' Because I couldn't care less. I think you were speaking to destrying the cultural heritages of others and I'm wondering whether those your ancestry destroyed are part of your list.
 
Jan 2013
4
0
The Place Of The Skull, West Virginié
I ain't been here long enough to post a direct link but
Terry Jones' documentary on the crusades is one of, perhaps THE, finest
ever produced.
youtube.com/watch?v=8glhcgltux4
 
Dec 2012
121
5
space
I never even approached the beliefs 'god' or otherwise of ' ancient Turks.' Because I couldn't care less. I think you were speaking to destrying the cultural heritages of others and I'm wondering whether those your ancestry destroyed are part of your list.
if you can find something the ottomans destroyed ,okay..

dont mention cengizhan , he was not worse than transatlantic slave traders..

if european can invade africa america and asia ,turks have the right to obtain some parts of europe too

am l wrong ?
 
Dec 2012
554
34
United States
if you can find something the ottomans destroyed ,okay..
I have history books in my home, was this question a joke?

dont mention cengizhan ,
I didn't.

if european can invade africa america and asia ,turks have the right to obtain some parts of europe too

am l wrong ?
The Turks invaded eastern europe.....the Ottoman Empire had its' wars, yes you are wrong, the Turks had no right to invade anyone.
 
Jul 2009
5,816
446
Opa Locka
http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv2.html

The thread was about the war and included reasons we were attacked on 9-11 and your exact statement was Iraq was irrelevant to al-Qaeda. I showed you that absolutely false and you vacated the thread. Good move, btw.

No, the thread was about the war. AQ had nothing to do with Iraq and was in fact Saddam's top enemy. I pointed this out, and you started rambling causing the thread to die.

I'm reading through the slaughter and conquered Byzantines and Romans and Persians and nearly Christian cultures and thinking China was probably influenced via trade routes and roads integrating with western Chinese. It is a fact Islam's meteroic rise was without precedence, it is true it came in large part under the sword. They simply killed millions in invading other cultures.......Charles Martel winning perhaps the most influential battle in western civilization's history. He doesn't stop the Muslim army that day, say he is killed (often how battles ended in this day, the Moslem King was killed ending this one) and you and I probably don't speak english today.

Stating fact, you can find this in any history book, you can even Google it.
So the balk of Islam's spread had absolutely nothing to do with war...
 
Dec 2012
554
34
United States
So the balk of Islam's spread had absolutely nothing to do with war...
You define bulk as the number of Chinese who have historically been influenced by Islam while living in a relatively densely populated country. The rest of the world....Persia, Africa, and Europe experienced Islam spread with wholesale violence and/or slavery these facts can be read in any history book..therefore....you're wrong.

The bulk of Islam was spread with absolute violence and even more relevant to the point I made....it's expansion was halted by absolute violence.

Following Mohammed's death, no religion has been so successful nor expanded as rapidly as Islam. It's ability to convince men to throw themselves heedless of death at any enemy with promises of eternal riches for killing of 'infidels' is unprecedented in its' scope and influence. It's not that other religions didn't experience the same, it's that it's founding and on into modern day.....its' calls for violence have been followed to the letter.

David, I can offer some great reads if you're interested.
 
Jul 2009
5,816
446
Opa Locka
You define bulk as the number of Chinese who have historically been influenced by Islam while living in a relatively densely populated country. The rest of the world....Persia, Africa, and Europe experienced Islam spread with wholesale violence and/or slavery these facts can be read in any history book..therefore....you're wrong.

The bulk of Islam was spread with absolute violence and even more relevant to the point I made....it's expansion was halted by absolute violence.

Following Mohammed's death, no religion has been so successful nor expanded as rapidly as Islam. It's ability to convince men to throw themselves heedless of death at any enemy with promises of eternal riches for killing of 'infidels' is unprecedented in its' scope and influence. It's not that other religions didn't experience the same, it's that it's founding and on into modern day.....its' calls for violence have been followed to the letter.

David, I can offer some great reads if you're interested.
But Islam isn't a state, it's a religion and philosophy. The number of adherents, not territory, is what matters when determining it's spread. The fact remains the Arabs became a minority in Islam almost the moment Muhammad died and most of the non-Arab Muslims were the result of genuine, peaceful conversion. I'm not saying Islam is innocent of conquest, they did beat up on the Romans and Germanic barbarians but that has vary little to do with Islam's early success which can be attributed more to merchants and missionaries.
 
Dec 2012
554
34
United States
But Islam isn't a state, it's a religion and philosophy.
Gee really? I reckon that's why I said "Following Mohammed's death, no religion has been so successful nor expanded as rapidly as Islam" in the very post you're responding to.

The number of adherents, not territory, is what matters when determining it's spread.
Both number of adherents and terrritory matter and were relevant to the point I was making....my pointing still standing btw.

The fact remains the Arabs became a minority in Islam almost the moment Muhammad died and most of the non-Arab Muslims were the result of genuine, peaceful conversion.
Most Chinese perhaps and China always being the most populated nation, the bulk of the Islamic world was brought to heel under the sword. This fact can be found in any history book, David, even the ones with an unbroken binding in your home.

I'm not saying Islam is innocent of conquest, they did beat up on the Romans and Germanic barbarians but that has vary little to do with Islam's early success which can be attributed more to merchants and missionaries.
They slaughtered in wholesale fashion, David, and both you and I know it.....and it took Christianity's ability to protect itself to shield what became Charlemagne's Empire. It took massive slaughter to turn Moslem armies around otherwise, you and I wouldn't be speaking english today.

I took history as a minor at University, I've done extensive reading on this matter and you happen to be wrong here. Again.
 
Jul 2009
5,816
446
Opa Locka
Gee really? I reckon that's why I said "Following Mohammed's death, no religion has been so successful nor expanded as rapidly as Islam" in the very post you're responding to.



Both number of adherents and terrritory matter and were relevant to the point I was making....my pointing still standing btw.



Most Chinese perhaps and China always being the most populated nation, the bulk of the Islamic world was brought to heel under the sword. This fact can be found in any history book, David, even the ones with an unbroken binding in your home.



They slaughtered in wholesale fashion, David, and both you and I know it.....and it took Christianity's ability to protect itself to shield what became Charlemagne's Empire. It took massive slaughter to turn Moslem armies around otherwise, you and I wouldn't be speaking english today.

I took history as a minor at University, I've done extensive reading on this matter and you happen to be wrong here. Again.
By your logic, if I started a religion and conquered 1/2 the world in a decade, I'd be the most successful religion in history even if I only had 100 idiots as adherents. You're taking a mental issue and trying to make a tangible argument, it's illogical and absurd.
 
Dec 2012
554
34
United States
By your logic, if I started a religion and conquered 1/2 the world in a decade, I'd be the most successful religion in history even if I only had 100 idiots as adherents. You're taking a mental issue and trying to make a tangible argument, it's illogical and absurd.
1/2 of the world doesn't equal 100 idiots, David. Islam conquered most of it's territories it came to eventually rule.....by the sword. That fact can be found in any history book including again, the unbroken bindings of the ones in your home.

You're wrong here, you've gone 0-3. Perhaps pick a less intelligent member to take to task, I'm actually informed on this topic. Thanks.
 
Dec 2012
121
5
space
I have history books in my home, was this question a joke?



I didn't.



The Turks invaded eastern europe.....the Ottoman Empire had its' wars, yes you are wrong, the Turks had no right to invade anyone.
no you must be a joke .)

yes they invaded the some parts of the world ,but they never harmed the national and culturel identity and the existence of those nations .thats why some of those nations still claim right to anatolia...... you understand what l mean

l am not an ottomanist and dont like them.but you have no right to claim turks were barbarian .yes you did it .atila and cengizhan were not more brutal than transatlantic slave traders.
 
Jul 2009
5,816
446
Opa Locka
no you must be a joke .)

yes they invaded the some parts of the world ,but they never harmed the national and culturel identity and the existence of those nations .thats why some of those nations still claim right to anatolia...... you understand what l mean

l am not an ottomanist and dont like them.but you have no right to claim turks were barbarian .yes you did it .atila and cengizhan were not more brutal than transatlantic slave traders.
I do love how he likes to ignore that Christianity not only spread by conquest but tended to exterminate any populations that didn't convert while the Muslims only taxed them.
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2012
554
34
United States
no you must be a joke .)

yes they invaded the some parts of the world ,but they never harmed the national and culturel identity and the existence of those nations .thats why some of those nations still claim right to anatolia...... you understand what l mean

l am not an ottomanist and dont like them.but you have no right to claim turks were barbarian .yes you did it .atila and cengizhan were not more brutal than transatlantic slave traders.
I didn't say they were more brutal. I'm quoting history, we're all entitled to our own opinions here, not our own facts.
 
Dec 2012
554
34
United States
I do love how he likes to ignore that Christianity not only spread by conquest but tended to exterminate any populations that didn't convert while the Muslims only taxed them.
I never denied Christianity was in some ways spread by conquest, many other religions have been as well. What is being denied here is the historical fact that the Muslim religion is without equal. None has spread so far, so fast using the sword as its' primary spreader of the word.

It's not accurate I've ignored Christian conquests even mentioning their violent acts in driving the Muslims out of what is today central and southern France with wholesale slaughter and violence, many of the Crusades involved towns being sacked and murder by the thousands.

But history doesn't change just because some don't like it...or are just now learning it existed. Anyone can go do the homework and easily see I'm quite correct here. I can offer some great reads David.
 

Similar Discussions