Positives & Negatives of Crusades on Lebanon

CrusaderV

CrusaderV

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
What is a scandal is an ignoramus calling the army commander of a Muslim majority country and a Muslim majority army a "crusader". Even if he is Christian, must he be a crusader? Crusaders didn't have a good legacy, if you read a bit of history.
Actually Crusaders have the greatest legacy in History
Defense and Spreading of Christianity the most Important Cultural Force in the History of Civilization
Today any fighter for a good cause is a Crusader
a person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner.
"crusaders for early detection and treatment of mental illnesses"
I called Shia Students Protesters in Iraq today who are fighting for secularism in Iraq Crusaders
See my early post
Good you returned to your old self
Elections are over
 
  • Advertisement
  • Dynamis

    Dynamis

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Actually Crusaders have the greatest legacy in History
    Defense and Spreading of Christianity the most Important Cultural Force in the History of Civilization
    Today any fighter for a good cause is a Crusader
    a person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner.
    "crusaders for early detection and treatment of mental illnesses"
    I called Shia Students Protesters in Iraq today who are fighting for secularism in Iraq Crusaders
    See my early post
    Good you returned to your old self
    Elections are over
    A few Things to set things things straight that will upset many on this forum from both sides. it is Ok. The Truth is the truth.

    Crusaders, while some where well meaning, did a huge disservice to Middle-Eastern Christians who are the original inhabitants and owners of these lands. Some Crusaders came on a religious mission, others just to pillage. To call someone a Crusader, is not a compliment. The first act of the Crusaders was to sack Constantinople, a Christian city further weakening the Christian Byzantine empire and pitting Middle Eastern Christians against muslims.

    To be fair, Crusades are the same as Jihad. War in the name of Allah should be an Oxymoron for both Christians and Muslims. Being called a War Jihadi is also not a compliment (Sorry if that offends some). You can Jihad without War by improving yourself and your society, just like like real devout Christians work on improving themselves by living in the example of Jesus. A war in the name of God, where people kill each other should never be in the name of God.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    A few Things to set things things straight that will upset many on this forum from both sides. it is Ok. The Truth is the truth.

    Crusaders, while some where well meaning, did a huge disservice to Middle-Eastern Christians who are the original inhabitants and owners of these lands. Some Crusaders came on a religious mission, others just to pillage. To call someone a Crusader, is not a compliment. The first act of the Crusaders was to sack Constantinople, a Christian city further weakening the Christian Byzantine empire.

    To be fair, Crusades are the same as Jihad. War in the name of Allah should be an Oxymoron for both Christians and Muslims. Being called a War Jihadi is also not a compliment (Sorry if that offends some). You can Jihad without War by improving yourself and your society, just like like real devout Christians work on improving themselves by living in the example of Jesus. A war in the name of God, where people kill each other should never be in the name of God.

    To get back on topic, this now will further upset many. Very personal opinion: I dont trust Joseph Aoun. He has a had a hand in all the disruptions, and thawra as if he is complicit. The Khaldeh shooting by the Druze Captain Daw, to the role of Mukhabarat El Jeish, etc. Joseph Aoun needs to understand that duplicity will not get him anywhere. He has either been "infiltrated", and corrupted with money or a promise of a position.

    This is very obvious to normal Lebanese, as well as supporters of FPM, HA, and Amal. He will never be trusted by the people that form the bulk of the armed forces. What this tells me, is that he is playing a dirty game, and has aspirations to be president, and therefore will be an impotent President Like Michel Sleiman, another March 14 stooge.
    I disagree
    Crusader saved Europe and the West from Jihad and discovered America
    Columbus was a Crusader in the final
    If Lebanon survived with a big Christians population it is because of Crusader
     
    Dynamis

    Dynamis

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I disagree
    Crusader saved Europe and the West from Jihad and discovered America
    Columbus was a Crusader in the final
    If Lebanon survived with a big Christians population it is because of Crusader
    You’re welcome to disagree! It does not make you right.

    Start another Thread on the positives and negatives of the Crusades. Let’s not debate it here.
    I think you’re mixing things up in a big way. The crusades were Medieval European military campaigns in the Middle East specifically to reclaim The lost city Of Jerusalem and the holy land. Defending Europe from the Muslim invasion and Christopher Columbus Christianizing the rest of world is a different thing.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You’re welcome to disagree! It does not make you right.

    Start another Thread on the positives and negatives of the Crusades. Let’s not debate it here.
    I think you’re mixing things up in a big way. The crusades were Medieval European military campaigns in the Middle East specifically to reclaim The lost city Of Jerusalem and the holy land. Defending Europe from the Muslim invasion and Christopher Columbus Christianizing the rest of world is a different thing.
    No Columbus wanted to reach Indea to trade directly without Islam
    Plus he wanted to liberate Jerusalem
     
    Dynamis

    Dynamis

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    No Columbus wanted to reach Indea to trade directly without Islam
    Plus he wanted to liberate Jerusalem
    That does not make him a crusader! You are hijacking the thread and making no sense.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You’re welcome to disagree! It does not make you right.

    Start another Thread on the positives and negatives of the Crusades. Let’s not debate it here.
    I think you’re mixing things up in a big way. The crusades were Medieval European military campaigns in the Middle East specifically to reclaim The lost city Of Jerusalem and the holy land. Defending Europe from the Muslim invasion and Christopher Columbus Christianizing the rest of world is a different thing.
    Was Christopher Columbus on a religious crusade?
    Oct 10, 2011
    by Josef Kuhn, Religion News Service

    Jack Heretik of the Knights of Columbus portrays 15th-century Italian explorer Christopher Columbus during a Columbus Day observance Oct. 11, 2010, at Columbus Circle in Washington, D.C. The Knights mark the federal holiday with the ceremony in front of Washington's Union Station each year. (CNS photo/Jonathan Ernst, Reuters)
    Two recent books argue that explorers Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama were more like Christian crusaders than greedy mercenaries or curious adventurers. Other historians, however, remain skeptical.

    The books, released in the weeks leading up to Columbus Day (Oct. 10), claim the reason the famous navigators sought a direct trade route to India was to undermine Islam.

    "I think historians have known about this, but they haven't taken it seriously," said Carol Delaney, author of "Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem." Delaney, a retired anthropologist, is currently a research scholar at Brown University.

    Delaney's book argues that Columbus wanted to find gold to finance a new crusade to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims, believing that Jerusalem must be in Christian hands before Jesus' Second Coming.

    "People don't usually look at Columbus in the religious context of his time, which was very powerful," said Delaney.

    Nigel Cliff, the author of a new book on Columbus's Portuguese contemporary Vasco da Gama, agrees that seeing the explorers through a religious lens is "a change of emphasis." Historians in the 19th century tended to regard Columbus as a heroic figure who embarked on a "disinterested intellectual adventure," whereas those in the 20th century tended to "focus on economics, to the exclusion of much else," he said.


    This Christmas, give a subscription to NCR.

    Cliff said mere economic advantage wasn't a medieval concept.

    "Faith is the burning issue that impelled the great Portugal (exploration) campaign for 80 years," said Cliff, a British writer and amateur historian.

    Da Gama became the first person to reach India directly from Europe by sailing around Africa in 1498, six years after Columbus discovered the Americas for the king and queen of Spain.

    Cliff's book, "Holy War," claims that da Gama's arrival in the East marked a turning point from Muslim to Christian ascendancy in global trade against the backdrop of an ongoing "clash of civilizations."

    But other historians say the new books' bold claims are backed by poor scholarship. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, a historian at the University of Notre Dame who has written extensively on Columbus, harshly criticized the books in The Wall Street Journal.

    In his view, Cliff and Delaney "assume the veracity and authenticity of sources of doubtful authorship and unreliable date" and make the mistake of taking Columbus at his word although he was notoriously disingenuous.


    Sanjay Subrahmanyam, a historian at UCLA who has written on da Gama, said religion for da Gama was "significant, but not the sole motive." The explorer was more interested in "personal advancement," as well as ensuring that trade routes would be controlled by the Portuguese nobility rather than the crown.

    Fernandez-Armesto called Cliff's theory of a "clash of civilizations" between Christianity and Islam "a figment of contemporary imaginations"; Subrahmanyam said it is "sensationalizing history by linking it with contemporary events."

    According to Subrahmanyam, there is "no evidence whatsoever" that da Gama wanted to take back Jerusalem and prepare for Christ's return, although there is some evidence that Columbus may have had those ambitions.

    For instance, Delaney points to the mysterious "Book of Prophecies," a gathering of mostly biblical pronouncements that seem to lend divine significance to Columbus's voyages. The book was supposedly compiled by Columbus himself.

    Fernandez-Armesto also points out that the Spanish court that commissioned Columbus's voyages had long been obsessed with the idea of Jerusalem.

    However, "there is no evidence that Columbus was particularly religious until ... he turned to God following the failure of his worldly ambitions," he said. Columbus died a disappointed man because he had not found the quantities of gold and the passage to India he had sought.

    If nothing else, the debate surrounding the books illustrates that Columbus remains a controversial figure, more than 500 years after he sailed the ocean blue. "Everybody seems to have a vested interest in their version of Columbus," Delaney said.

    The Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic fraternal organization, are named after the explorer. Pat Korten, a spokesman for the Knights, said Columbus' piety was a "significant" reason for the group's name.

    "The Knights of Columbus always regarded him as a fundamentally religious man—there isn't any doubt about that," Korten said.

    The other factor was strong anti-Catholic sentiment when the Knights were founded in 1882. By connecting themselves with the popular figure of Columbus, Korten said, the Knights were sending the message, "We're just as American as you are—we got here first!"

    Although Columbus's popularity fell during the 20th century, the Knights are "not ashamed" of their namesake, Korten said. He had never heard the theory that Columbus wanted to fund a crusade to take back Jerusalem.

    If an erroneous theory is being propagated, Subrahmanyam blamed "commercial (publishing) presses" for not submitting their manuscripts to the same rigorous peer review and critique as academic publishers.

    Fernandez-Armesto, meanwhile, blamed the authors themselves.

    "If you are taking refuge from another discipline in the belief that history is easy, without bothering to do the basic work," he wrote, "you will deserve to fail."
    Christopher Columbus Was Both a Crusader and a Villain
     
    Lebmonage

    Lebmonage

    Legendary Member
    Actually Crusaders have the greatest legacy in History
    Defense and Spreading of Christianity the most Important Cultural Force in the History of Civilization
    Today any fighter for a good cause is a Crusader
    a person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner.
    "crusaders for early detection and treatment of mental illnesses"
    I called Shia Students Protesters in Iraq today who are fighting for secularism in Iraq Crusaders
    See my early post
    Good you returned to your old self
    Elections are over
    The above is a redefining of history or a reinvention of history.

    From my little knowledge of history, I can recollect a few points about the crusades:

    - three crusades that ended up in utter failure and the death of its leaders.

    - the crusades were made up of uncivilized peasant class and the mob class of European societies. Thus they were uncivilized savages.

    - the crusades were staged to retake the holy land from the Muslims. In other words they were meant to be a "holy war" against Muslims. Thus the mission was a racist movement aimed at killing and maiming Muslims.

    - the uncivilized crusaders ended up massacring many Christians, and also, Jews, based on their phenotypic similarities with Muslims.

    If you're a Middle Easterner, whether Christian, Jew or Pagan, the crusaders mistook every eastern looking person for a Muslim. They ended up creating massacres and looting like petty thieves of nowadays.

    My conclusions:

    When George Bush tagged the invasion of Afghanistan as a crusade, that resulted in an outcry even from his allies in the Middle East, who objected.

    You can read this to enlighten your mind (it is from a "crusader" writer):


    When you finish reading the above article and what I've stated based on historical facts, you come to one conclusion: the crusaders were ancient Christian terrorists. At best, they were ignorant fanatics blinded by religious fervor, whose aim ended up in destroying everyone not a European looking Christian.

    The crusades were no different from the Futuhat. The same thing exactly, albeit the Futuhat led to assimilation of indigenous peoples and absorbing them either into the fold of Islam or into the fold of Arabism (thus Arab Christians and Arab Jews).

    The crusades were no different from the Nakbah. Both were complete ethnic cleansing and ethno religious wars.

    You term everyone who's against Iran and its allies in the region a "crusader". I'm sure even Ibn Salman is a "crusader". Everyone you imagine to be following your American divide and conquer policy and subjugation in the Middle East is a crusader, in your estimation.

    In the religious sense, when you refer to someone as a crusader, it may not be objectionable because it depicts religious fervor or intense faith. But in the political sense, a crusader is a religious terrorist of the ancient past, whose mission was a religious cleansing of people found living in a particular land.

    I would ask the moderators to ask you to desist from the repetition of using the term crusader to refer to all those you think stand for the political beliefs you hold. I dont find it honorific referring to Shias of Iraq as crusaders. First, they're not crusaders in the sense of the word. Secondly, just like it almost happened in Lebanon, rogue elements and sellouts within the protesters are leading an anti Iran campaign in Iraq.

    No respectable Shia with a sane mind would accept to lead or be part of an anti Iran Zionist campaign anywhere, on behalf of US foreign policy. The same US foreign policy that has led nations to ruin in the Middle East. Iraqi Shias, who are driven by impulse, rather than rationale, should wake up from their stupidity. It wasnt Iran that was sending them gifts of suicide bombers to Baghdad to blow up Iraqi Shias. It was the Wahhabi ally of a crusader nation that was doing that.

    Lastly, I don't find it smart to refer to the head of Lebanon's army (majority of its soldiers being Muslims) a crusader, when you also refer to Trump, the p*$$* groper, as "the crusader in chief". Is our army general an officer of Trump? Is Trump your pope or ayatollah?

    In the modern world, your crusades can only happen in your charismatic revivals, religious orders and within the confines of your churches. Crusades dont happen in the political arenas. Even those whom you label crusaders in a racist and bigoted, or at best ignorant manner wouldn't want to be referred to with such title.
     
    Lebmonage

    Lebmonage

    Legendary Member
    After writing a long epistles of facts, @LVV 's first reaction is to react with a laughter.

    @Warden do you see why it is futile arguing with such a person? All his posts are low quality and ignorance.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The above is a redefining of history or a reinvention of history.

    From my little knowledge of history, I can recollect a few points about the crusades:

    - three crusades that ended up in utter failure and the death of its leaders.
    - the crusades were made up of uncivilized peasant class and the mob class of European societies. Thus they were uncivilized savages.
    - the crusades were staged to retake the holy land from the Muslims. In other words they were meant to be a "holy war" against Muslims. Thus the mission was a racist movement aimed at killing and maiming Muslims.
    - the uncivilized crusaders ended up massacring many Christians, and also, Jews, based on their phenotypic similarities with Muslims. If you're a Middle Easterner, whether Christian, Jew or Pagan, the crusaders mistook every eastern looking person for a Muslim. They ended up creating massacres and looting like petty thieves of nowadays.

    My conclusions:

    When George Bush tagged the invasion of Afghanistan as a crusade, that resulted in an outcry even from his allies in the Middle East, who objected.

    You can read this to enlighten your mind (it is from a "crusader" writer):


    When you finish reading the above article and what I've stated based on historical facts, you come to one conclusion: the crusaders were ancient Christian terrorists. At best, they were ignorant fanatics blinded by religious fervor, whose aim ended up in destroying everyone not a European looking Christian.

    The crusades were no different from the Futuhat. The same thing exactly, albeit the Futuhat led to assimilation of indigenous peoples and absorbing them either into the fold of Islam or into the fold of Arabism (thus Arab Christians and Arab Jews).

    The crusades were no different from the Nakbah. Both were complete ethnic cleansing and ethno religious wars.

    You term everyone who's against Iran and its allies in the region a "crusader". I'm sure even Ibn Salman is a "crusader". Everyone you imagine to be following your American divide and conquer policy and subjugation in the Middle East is a crusader, in your estimation.

    In the religious sense, when you refer to someone as a crusader, it may not be objectionable because it depicts religious fervor or intense faith. But in the political sense, a crusader is a religious terrorist of the ancient past, whose mission was a religious cleansing of people found living in a particular land.

    I would ask the moderators to ask you to desist from the repetition of using the term crusader to refer to all those you think stand for the political beliefs you hold. I dont find it honorific referring to Shias of Iraq as crusaders. First, they're not crusaders in the sense of the word. Secondly, just like it almost happened in Lebanon, rogue elements and sellouts within the protesters are leading an anti Iran campaign in Iraq. No respectable Shia with a sane mind would accept to lead or be part of an anti Iran Zionist campaign anywhere, on behalf of US foreign policy. The same US foreign policy that has led nations to ruin in the Middle East. Iraqi Shias, who are driven by impulse, rather than rationale, should wake up from their stupidity. It wasnt Iran that was sending them gifts of suicide bombers to Baghdad to blow up Iraqi Shias. It was the Wahhabi ally of a crusader nation that was doing that.

    Lastly, I don't find it smart to refer to the head of Lebanon's army (majority of its soldiers being Muslims) a crusader, when you also refer to Trump, the p*$$* groper, as "the crusader in chief". Is our army general an officer of Trump? Is Trump your pope or ayatollah?

    In the modern world, your crusades can only happen in your charismatic revivals, religious orders and within the confines of your churches. Crusades dont happen in the political arenas. Even those whom you label crusaders in a racist and bigoted, or at best ignorant manner wouldn't want to be referred to with such title.
    First I m free to express my opinions like I want
    Not your business
    Second Jihad today is seen as an evil bad words
    Third Crusader Modern expression is fighting for a good cause
    - Greta Thunberg's climate crusade
    Two examples from leftist newspapers about a leftist figures which is today leading the fight for the environment in the world
    An icon
    Greta Thunberg is described as a Crusader for the environment
    Go learn history
    Crusader from holy Christians warriors who defended themselves against jihad ( Islam attack Christianity not the other way round , )
    Crusader Columbus or Crusader Greta Thunberg
    Mean Crusader are the biggest power in human history
     
    Lebmonage

    Lebmonage

    Legendary Member
    A few Things to set things things straight that will upset many on this forum from both sides. it is Ok. The Truth is the truth.

    Crusaders, while some where well meaning, did a huge disservice to Middle-Eastern Christians who are the original inhabitants and owners of these lands. Some Crusaders came on a religious mission, others just to pillage. To call someone a Crusader, is not a compliment. The first act of the Crusaders was to sack Constantinople, a Christian city further weakening the Christian Byzantine empire and pitting Middle Eastern Christians against muslims.

    To be fair, Crusades are the same as Jihad. War in the name of Allah should be an Oxymoron for both Christians and Muslims. Being called a War Jihadi is also not a compliment (Sorry if that offends some). You can Jihad without War by improving yourself and your society, just like like real devout Christians work on improving themselves by living in the example of Jesus. A war in the name of God, where people kill each other should never be in the name of God.
    The crusades were offensive campaigns. Jihad, in the real sense of the word and based on the original teachings of our Prophet is meant to either be defensive battles involving armed struggle, or as you rightly pointed out, a struggle to improve oneself. Anything short of that is a distortion. The crusades were never meant to be defensive in nature from the onset. Otherwise, what do Europeans have to do with the Middle East? The crusades were just like the futuhat, but even worse. Worse in the sense that it was aimed at pillaging and massacre and a racist campaign. The futuhat, even though conquests, and blame worthy, still paved the way to some positive aspects like assimilation, arabization and eventually, tolerance and coexistence among Muslims and the People of the Book.

    I was hoping to read from OP what he understood are the negative and positive aspects of the crusades on Lebanon. He titled his thread on that but really said nothing in that line.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The crusades were offensive campaigns. Jihad, in the real sense of the word and based on the original teachings of our Prophet is meant to either be defensive battles involving armed struggle, or as you rightly pointed out, a struggle to improve oneself. Anything short of that is a distortion. The crusades were never meant to be defensive in nature from the onset. Otherwise, what do Europeans have to do with the Middle East? The crusades were just like the futuhat, but even worse. Worse in the sense that it was aimed at pillaging and massacre and a racist campaign. The futuhat, even though conquests, and blame worthy, still paved the way to some positive aspects like assimilation, arabization and eventually, tolerance and coexistence among Muslims and the People of the Book.

    I was hoping to read from OP what he understood are the negative and positive aspects of the crusades on Lebanon. He titled his thread on that but really said nothing in that line.
    What did Muslim from Arabia have to do with the levant and Persian empire and Byzantine empire attacking them
    Or Spain attacking it or Greece or southern Italy or Cyprus
    Why Holy Jihad was proclaimed against these regions
    You don’t expect Christians to fight back
     
    Lebmonage

    Lebmonage

    Legendary Member
    What did Muslim from Arabia have to do with the levant and Persian empire and Byzantine empire attacking them
    Or Spain attacking it or Greece or southern Italy or Cyprus
    Why Holy Jihad was proclaimed against these regions
    You don’t expect Christians to fight back
    The answer has already been given:

    The crusades were never meant to be defensive in nature from the onset. Otherwise, what do Europeans have to do with the Middle East? The crusades were just like the futuhat, but even worse. Worse in the sense that it was aimed at pillaging and massacre and a racist campaign. The futuhat, even though conquests, and blame worthy, still paved the way to some positive aspects like assimilation, arabization and eventually, tolerance and coexistence among Muslims and the People of the Book.

    I was hoping to read from OP what he understood are the negative and positive aspects of the crusades on Lebanon. He titled his thread on that but really said nothing in that line.
     
    agnostic

    agnostic

    Legendary Member
    Hi guys
    @Lebmonage and @LVV
    Keef aljaw bi haida el thread. Bet7ebbo sherikkom?
    Bass please, 7ebbo ba3D deyman. Always Respect and love.

    PS: @LVV tune to OTV. The Armenian today edition has just started now.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The answer has already been given:
    Facts
    632
    Death 💀 of Mo
    Beginning of Jihad from what is today KSA
    632/750
    Attacking Syria Egypt North Africa Spain Italy France
    Plus Iraq plus Iran until India
    Normal Christians fight back
    End of debate
    Plus Christians are the biggest sect in Lebanon with 37 percent of the population
    Shia 27 percent ( difference with Sunnis )
    Sunnis 28 percent
    Druze 6 percent ( not Muslim)
    Alawis 2 percent ( not Muslim)
     
    ّTelefon Kasse

    ّTelefon Kasse

    Member
    A few Things to set things things straight that will upset many on this forum from both sides. it is Ok. The Truth is the truth.

    Crusaders, while some where well meaning, did a huge disservice to Middle-Eastern Christians who are the original inhabitants and owners of these lands. Some Crusaders came on a religious mission, others just to pillage. To call someone a Crusader, is not a compliment. The first act of the Crusaders was to sack Constantinople, a Christian city further weakening the Christian Byzantine empire and pitting Middle Eastern Christians against muslims.

    To be fair, Crusades are the same as Jihad. War in the name of Allah should be an Oxymoron for both Christians and Muslims. Being called a War Jihadi is also not a compliment (Sorry if that offends some). You can Jihad without War by improving yourself and your society, just like like real devout Christians work on improving themselves by living in the example of Jesus. A war in the name of God, where people kill each other should never be in the name of God.
    true Muslims do not wage war in the name of Allah without a reason. If Muslims do not have the capabilities to destroy israel at the moment, that doesn't
    mean they should let the Persians or Turks or Kurds or crusaders have their pagan ways in Islamic countries. While crusaders invade other countries to destroy and loot them, Muslims don't do that
     
    Top