Jump to content
I AM NOT THAT GUY

Why did Obama compare Crusades to Islamic State at prayer breakfast?

 Share

206 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Monaco
Timeline

Not the same thing. Christian terrorism was is spondored by the good white god. Perfectly justifiable and completely defensible.

Yeap. They are just behind some years, but it is no different than what Christians did in the name of God.

Agreed. It is not different at all.

Edited by JohnR!

200px-FSM_Logo.svg.png


www.ffrf.org




Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is how things go consistently sideways here in the CEHST-pool. Agreeing that the statement is basically true and agreeing that a prayer breakfast was the time and place to bring it up are not the same thing. Attempting to conflate the two to make a left handed put down is too often the case here.

Reason and Logic just left the room ladies and gentleman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

Historical context, as you point out...

A1 - Because the Vatican sought hegemony and power over Europe and the world.

Not entirely. Yes Pope Urban may have been motivated by the strengthening of his power base but more directly the Byzantines eastern borders were threatened by the Seldjuk expansion. The response was the first Crusade. IE it was a reactionary war. A modern day comparison might be NATO deciding to get involved in the Ukraine (and then going beyond the conflict for additional gains and wealth)

A2 - Genocide [perpetrated by the Crusaders] was extremist, no matter the times.

Not exactly. It was quite common for armies of the time to commit mass murder upon conquering a city. This includes many empires going back to Rome itself. Even today we celebrate Columbus who commited genocide.

A3 - Because they want hegemony and power over the ME and the wold.

I don't actually understand what you mean by wold, as there are no forests in the middle east. At any rate, ISIS formed as an expansive force within a power vacuum formed by the US and the revolutions that became a part of Arab Spring. It was a growth from a central point.

A4 - Genocide [perpetrated by ISIS] is extremist, no matter the times.

Genocide has been considered extremist only in the 20th century. In the US, the federal government openly supported genocide in the 19th century and no one really spoke against it in the public eye.

The only reason one can try and push the bs about 'context of the time' is becuase the Crusaders won, and the victors control the narrative of history. If the Nazis had won the war, I'm sure you'd be here saying they were not extremist in the context of the time either.

I'm sorry, but you have this all wrong. The Crusaders ultimately lost. Many were persecuted upon their return (Knights Templar for instance).

Edited by Sousuke

1d35bdb6477b38fedf8f1ad2b4c743ea.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Country: Monaco
Timeline

I agree with the 'not entirely'. If the Vatican was only seeking power over Europe the first Crusade would not have needed to carry out the massacre of Jerusalem.

The only reason we look the other way at genocide throughout history is becuase we look at it through the lenses of the winners. If stands to [your] reason taht if Germany had won the war, the Holocaust would be justified, becuase times were different.

By stating the Crusafers lost denotes a somwhat myopic and abridged knowledge of western culture and civilization. You do make raise interesting points though, but still you present no argument to refute the main point of this thread.

There is no light under which anyone of us can attempt to justify genocide, no matter where, when or by whom and really the point the POTUS made was not that. His point was that a group of criminals have appointed themselves as representative of a faith, just like Christians have done in the past. Perhaps the only difference is that no central body of Islam condones thier actions, as the Vatican did the Crusades... but we all know that that was then and this is now, right?

Historical context, as you point out...

A1 - Because the Vatican sought hegemony and power over Europe and the world.

Not entirely. Yes Pope Urban may have been motivated by the strengthening of his power base but more directly the Byzantines eastern borders were threatened by the Seldjuk expansion. The response was the first Crusade. IE it was a reactionary war. A modern day comparison might be NATO deciding to get involved in the Ukraine (and then going beyond the conflict for additional gains and wealth)

A2 - Genocide [perpetrated by the Crusaders] was extremist, no matter the times.

Not exactly. It was quite common for armies of the time to commit mass murder upon conquering a city. This includes many empires going back to Rome itself. Even today we celebrate Columbus who commited genocide.

A3 - Because they want hegemony and power over the ME and the wold.

I don't actually understand what you mean by wold, as there are no forests in the middle east. At any rate, ISIS formed as an expansive force within a power vacuum formed by the US and the revolutions that became a part of Arab Spring. It was a growth from a central point.

A4 - Genocide [perpetrated by ISIS] is extremist, no matter the times.

Genocide has been considered extremist only in the 20th century. In the US, the federal government openly supported genocide in the 19th century and no one really spoke against it in the public eye.

The only reason one can try and push the bs about 'context of the time' is becuase the Crusaders won, and the victors control the narrative of history. If the Nazis had won the war, I'm sure you'd be here saying they were not extremist in the context of the time either.

I'm sorry, but you have this all wrong. The Crusaders ultimately lost. Many were persecuted upon their return (Knights Templar for instance).


Edited by JohnR!

200px-FSM_Logo.svg.png


www.ffrf.org




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

I agree with the 'not entirely'. If the Vatican was only seeking power over Europe the first Crusade would not have needed to carry out the massacre of Jerusalem.

The only reason we look the other way at genocide throughout history is becuase we look at it through the lenses of the winners. If stands to [your] reason taht if Germany had won the war, the Holocaust would be justified, becuase times were different.

By stating the Crusafers lost denotes a somwhat myopic and abridged knowledge of western culture and civilization. You do make raise interesting points though, but still you present no argument to refute the main point of this thread.

There is no light under which anyone of us can attempt to justify genocide, no matter where, when or by whom and really the point the POTUS made was not that. His point was that a group of criminals have appointed themselves as representative of a faith, just like Christians have done in the past. Perhaps the only difference is that no central body of Islam condones thier actions, as the Vatican did the Crusades... but we all know that that was then and this is now, right?

The primary argument of this thread is the comparison of ISIS to Crusaders as extremists. Whereas both may have been embroiled in genocide, in the context of history, the Crusaders have been shown to be quite average amongst their peers. In that light, its rather hard to label them as extreme.

1d35bdb6477b38fedf8f1ad2b4c743ea.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

I agree with the 'not entirely'. If the Vatican was only seeking power over Europe the first Crusade would not have needed to carry out the massacre of Jerusalem.

The only reason we look the other way at genocide throughout history is becuase we look at it through the lenses of the winners. If stands to [your] reason taht if Germany had won the war, the Holocaust would be justified, becuase times were different.

By stating the Crusafers lost denotes a somwhat myopic and abridged knowledge of western culture and civilization. You do make raise interesting points though, but still you present no argument to refute the main point of this thread.

There is no light under which anyone of us can attempt to justify genocide, no matter where, when or by whom and really the point the POTUS made was not that. His point was that a group of criminals have appointed themselves as representative of a faith, just like Christians have done in the past. Perhaps the only difference is that no central body of Islam condones thier actions, as the Vatican did the Crusades... but we all know that that was then and this is now, right?

Also I find it odd that you would claim I am delivering an abridged knowledge of western civilization when I state that the Crusaders lost. In the length of human history, they held on to their objectives less than a lifetime. I see no other result but failure given the result.

There was a positives of course - it created trade routes that allowed Europe to later flourish.

Edited by Sousuke

1d35bdb6477b38fedf8f1ad2b4c743ea.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Country: Monaco
Timeline

I think we're looking at the wrong item on the window. The POTUS commment was that christianity was used throughout history in the same wrong and heinous manner in which Islam is being used by ISIS. Regardless of reasons or even historical context I believe we can all agree he was spot on with his comment. We can find examples as late as the 1950s where many who claimed to be christians were usuring the faith to justify atrocities.

His point - one that has remained constand throughout the centuries - is that religious beliefs, scriptures and zealots can be bent, twisted and distorted to fit any narrative one can fathom. In that sense he was completely right. These ISIS fighter are following their sacred scriptures as much as Mr Torquemada as was acting on christian tenets during his bloody enterprise, or not.

'Take me to church, I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins so you can sharpen your knife
Offer me my deathless death Good God, let me give you my life
(Hozier)

Also I find it odd that you would claim I am delivering an abridged knowledge of western civilization when I state that the Crusaders lost. In the length of human history, they held on to their objectives less than a lifetime. I see no other result but failure given the result.

There was a positives of course - it created trade routes that allowed Europe to later flourish.

The primary argument of this thread is the comparison of ISIS to Crusaders as extremists. Whereas both may have been embroiled in genocide, in the context of history, the Crusaders have been shown to be quite average amongst their peers. In that light, its rather hard to label them as extreme.

Edited by JohnR!

200px-FSM_Logo.svg.png


www.ffrf.org




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

I think we're looking at the wrong item on the window. The POTUS commment was that christianity was used throughout history in the same wrong and heinous manner in which Islam is being used by ISIS. Regardless of reasons or even historical context I believe we can all agree he was spot on with his comment. We can find examples as late as the 1950s where many who claimed to be christians were usuring the faith to justify atrocities.

His point - one that has remained constand throughout the centuries - is that religious beliefs, scriptures and zealots can be bent, twisted and distorted to fit any narrative one can fathom. In that sense he was completely right. These ISIS fighter are following their sacred scriptures as much as Mr Torquemada as was acting on christian tenets during his bloody enterprise, or not.

'Take me to church, I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies

I'll tell you my sins so you can sharpen your knife

Offer me my deathless death Good God, let me give you my life (Hozier)

Sorry, but I completely disagree in that under the context of time and conditions of the first Crusade, you can completely remove the notion of faith, and the actions of the Crusaders were logical for their time in the same way other ancient nations conducted warfare. The only way to assume the same of ISIS is if the majority of current nations conduct warfare in a similar manner.

There are no grounds for an equal comparison or judgement. By comparing or judging the modern world to the ancient world it shows a person doesn't understand the mindset of ancient people. It frankly shows the lack of intelligence the President has.

I get very tired of people claiming for instance that the Romans were barbaric by trying to compare their modern perspective to the Roman world. You have view history through the context of the period. (Don't even get me started for instance on Thomas Jefferson)

Edited by Sousuke

1d35bdb6477b38fedf8f1ad2b4c743ea.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Country: Monaco
Timeline

We're talking about completely different things.

Incidentally, putting Jim Crow, segregation and slavery in the context of 'ancient people' [sic] shows severe lack of intelligence as well.

Sorry, but I completely disagree in that under the context of time and conditions of the first Crusade, you can completely remove the notion of faith, and the actions of the Crusaders were logical for their time in the same way other ancient nations conducted warfare. The only way to assume the same of ISIS is if the majority of current nations conduct warfare in a similar manner.

There are no grounds for an equal comparison or judgement. By comparing or judging the modern world to the ancient world it shows a person doesn't understand the mindsent of ancient people. It frankly shows the lack of intelligence the President has.

Edited by JohnR!

200px-FSM_Logo.svg.png


www.ffrf.org




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

We're talking about completely different things.

Incidentally, putting Jim Crow, segregation and slavery in the context of 'ancient people' [sic] shows severe lack of intelligence as well.

Now you are just being petty (and trollish). Thus far my focus is on the Crusades (see thread title), whereas you are putting words in my mouth. Shame on you!

Edited by Sousuke

1d35bdb6477b38fedf8f1ad2b4c743ea.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...