User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:33:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jeez, could you snivel any more? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Lots of countries have a strong sense of nationalism yet don't go around committing genocide. But I know your kind likes to demonize that word as much as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:43:16 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I asked you (which you should have seen) what your general take on the crusades is. Just a basic question, as I'm interested in what understanding you bring to this, and what what portion of the historiography and/or popular press/media presentations have formed your opinions. I don’t think much of the crusades. I do think it is amusing how an elite cadre of blowhards use the crusades to build some kinda wacky identity trip, like they are fightng in some end of the world battle against demonic savages. That shit seems a lot like the blustery crap Islamists spew. Birds and feathers. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:44:35 PM EDT
[#3]
I teach this in my world history classes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:44:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:45:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I teach this in my world history classes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:45:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just the usual shit one would learn in history classes in high school and undergrad. I probably learned that the crusades weren't the best thing ever for everyone given the prevalence of Jews where I grew up, but nothing particularly deep. I don't think much of the crusades. I do think it is amusing how an elite cadre of blowhards use the crusades to build some kinda wacky identity trip, like they are fightng in some end of the world battle against demonic savages. That shit seems a lot like the blustery crap Islamists spew. Birds and feathers. YMMV. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I asked you (which you should have seen) what your general take on the crusades is. Just a basic question, as I'm interested in what understanding you bring to this, and what what portion of the historiography and/or popular press/media presentations have formed your opinions. I don't think much of the crusades. I do think it is amusing how an elite cadre of blowhards use the crusades to build some kinda wacky identity trip, like they are fightng in some end of the world battle against demonic savages. That shit seems a lot like the blustery crap Islamists spew. Birds and feathers. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:47:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is the opportunity to knock it out of the park. I'm all ears. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I have yet to see a “Dr. Bill” Warner video that wasn’t occasional kernels of truth wrapped in burrito coverings of cherry-picked events, outrageously wrong statements, weak contextual understanding, and overall shit-poor agenda-driven polemic “research.” I’d sooner rely on a Michael Moore documentary to understand something. I'm all ears. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:50:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Or link to someone debunking his videos.
Whatever. But the appeal to authority is gonna ring hollow on this one. His history appears accurate. What it doesn't contain is the endless apologia that usually follows a factual recitation of the history of islam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:52:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Muslims have Sharia law Atheists have socialism. Christians have, well freedom. Which religion seeks ultimate control? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let me help you out. Religion is a plague on Earth ! Founded by people looking for control. Atheists have socialism. Christians have, well freedom. Which religion seeks ultimate control? Not nearly as bad today. Except for Islam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:55:23 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The majority will not believe it until the muslim horde is at the gates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 6:57:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Ignorant logic of the left: Islam is a religion of brown people. To speak ill of Islam is to speak ill of people that are brown. To speak ill of brown people is RACIST and RACISM is the worst evil in the world. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:09:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ignorant logic of the left: Islam is a religion of brown people. To speak ill of Islam is to speak ill of people that are brown. To speak ill of brown people is RACIST and RACISM is the worst evil in the world. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:12:11 PM EDT
[#13]
For later
Thanks for posting |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:35:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Facts are racist and intolerant.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 9:17:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ignorant logic of the left: Islam is a religion of brown people. To speak ill of Islam is to speak ill of people that are brown. To speak ill of brown people is RACIST and RACISM is the worst evil in the world. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Tangentially, this is why we saw prominent lefties calling the attack on Christian churches in Sri Lanka as attacks on "Easter worshippers", not "Christians", because Christianity is "white man's religion". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 9:34:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Dr. Bill Warner should be listened to by the west. The man knows what's happening here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:17:26 PM EDT
[#17]
I'm in so I can be mis-educated by watching the Warren videos.
It would be great if someone could post an alternative, but factually accurate, link to corrections of his videos. Hope I learn something. Txl |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:18:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm in so I can be mis-educated by watching the Warren videos. It would be great if someone could post an alternative, but factually accurate, link to corrections of his videos. Hope I learn something. Txl |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:29:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:35:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the obligation of an Expert. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:39:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
During that period of time...All of them ! They all had a unhealthy bias for only “their” religion of choice. Not nearly as bad today. Except for Islam. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me help you out. Religion is a plague on Earth ! Founded by people looking for control. Atheists have socialism. Christians have, well freedom. Which religion seeks ultimate control? Not nearly as bad today. Except for Islam. Islam on the other hand, has scriptural justification for all the lying, murder, rape, slavery, genocide, child abuse, spousal abuse etc. TLDR: The closer one gets to true Christian doctrine, the less they resemble the heresy of the 13th century. The opposite is true for islam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:45:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m not an expert. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:55:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know B_A, and I mean this sincerely, I’m often surprised at your level of intelligence, other times I’m surprised that you allow the propaganda of the Left obscure that intelligence. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:07:59 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me ask you this. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not? 
So Islam is a good thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:14:36 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me ask you this. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not? First, I’m not defending the video or “Dr. Bill”, I’ve neither seen this current video, or to my knowledge, any of Dr. Bill’s other videos. My points were mainly in response to the posts in this thread about the subject, rather than the video in the OP. I should have made that clear. Secondly, and I know I’ll get flamed for this, but the Crusades were not something that could be justified with biblical scripture. They were outside the realm of biblical doctrine. I understand why they did it, but history would have perhaps judged them less harshly had they not chosen to use Christianity as not only a motivation, but also a justification. It was neither. In a nutshell, that’s the post I’m trying to make. You can’t justify the Crusades with biblical doctrine, but you can justify jihad with the teachings of the koran. The double standard and unwillingness to criticize anything islam is not only tiresome, it’s counterproductive. We’re often told by leftists that unless you’re a scholar you can’t criticize islam, yet those same people have no problem pointing out how violent the Old Testament is, never realizing the supreme irony. ETA: Sorry if my response seems rushed, I’m out of time at the moment as I about to board, but I’ll do my best to come back and continue the conversation, thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:16:08 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
During that period of time...All of them ! They all had a unhealthy bias for only "their" religion of choice. Not nearly as bad today. Except for Islam. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me help you out. Religion is a plague on Earth ! Founded by people looking for control. Atheists have socialism. Christians have, well freedom. Which religion seeks ultimate control? Not nearly as bad today. Except for Islam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:22:58 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Islam is a good thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not?
So Islam is a good thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:27:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And people ask me why I don't bother to try to elaborate... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you're asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where "Dr. Bill" is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I've spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he's an authority - and he's failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his "PhD" status doesn't help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who've written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don't hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as "Dr. Bill" gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don't let me get in the way. What do I know though, I'm just a lowly, bigoted 'teener. Do you except the initial "Dr. Bill" premise that the way to compare "Jihad" and "Crusade" as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a "genocide," naturally) and President Bush's use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that's left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a "Crusade?" Why or why not?
So Islam is a good thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:33:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps I should posted more in my initial response that would have made a few things more clear, apologies for that. First, I’m not defending the video or “Dr. Bill”, I’ve neither seen this current video, or to my knowledge, any of Dr. Bill’s other videos. My points were mainly in response to the posts in this thread about the subject, rather than the video in the OP. I should have made that clear. Secondly, and I know I’ll get flamed for this, but the Crusades were not something that could be justified with biblical scripture. They were outside the realm of biblical doctrine. I understand why they did it, but history would have perhaps judged them less harshly had they not chosen to use Christianity as not only a motivation, but also a justification. It was neither. In a nutshell, that’s the post I’m trying to make. You can’t justify the Crusades with biblical doctrine, but you can justify jihad with the teachings of the koran. The double standard and unwillingness to criticize anything islam is not only tiresome, it’s counterproductive. We’re often told by leftists that unless you’re a scholar you can’t criticize islam, yet those same people have no problem pointing out how violent the Old Testament is, never realizing the supreme irony. ETA: Sorry if my response seems rushed, I’m out of time at the moment as I about to board, but I’ll do my best to come back and continue the conversation, thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not? First, I’m not defending the video or “Dr. Bill”, I’ve neither seen this current video, or to my knowledge, any of Dr. Bill’s other videos. My points were mainly in response to the posts in this thread about the subject, rather than the video in the OP. I should have made that clear. Secondly, and I know I’ll get flamed for this, but the Crusades were not something that could be justified with biblical scripture. They were outside the realm of biblical doctrine. I understand why they did it, but history would have perhaps judged them less harshly had they not chosen to use Christianity as not only a motivation, but also a justification. It was neither. In a nutshell, that’s the post I’m trying to make. You can’t justify the Crusades with biblical doctrine, but you can justify jihad with the teachings of the koran. The double standard and unwillingness to criticize anything islam is not only tiresome, it’s counterproductive. We’re often told by leftists that unless you’re a scholar you can’t criticize islam, yet those same people have no problem pointing out how violent the Old Testament is, never realizing the supreme irony. ETA: Sorry if my response seems rushed, I’m out of time at the moment as I about to board, but I’ll do my best to come back and continue the conversation, thanks. That video star with the strawman presumption that evoking the historical Christian concept of Crusade is supposedly the only argument used to counter the concept of “Jihad” (as opposed to the any sober comparison of the rise of Islam relative to the rise of any other human civilization). It then sets about seemingly creating a broad definition of “Jihad” and thus allowing a depiction of every slave raid or skirmish along the expanding borders of Islamic civilization as a “Jihad Battle.” It then established a very narrow definition of “Crusade,” and depicts only large scale, named battles, and only those against Islamic armies. The intent is obvious: to make the history of violence and warfare fought in the name of Christianity look like a meager joke in comparison to the monolithic onslaught of the Saracens (which continues today, naturally). Some here eat that shit up. It speaks to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:34:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Tag for better connection
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:35:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have carefully examined your posts in this thread for any bit of actual substance. All I have found is the usual posturing, scoffing, and vacuous nattering. Distinctly unimpressive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you're asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where "Dr. Bill" is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I've spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he's an authority - and he's failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his "PhD" status doesn't help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who've written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don't hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as "Dr. Bill" gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don't let me get in the way. What do I know though, I'm just a lowly, bigoted 'teener. Do you except the initial "Dr. Bill" premise that the way to compare "Jihad" and "Crusade" as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a "genocide," naturally) and President Bush's use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that's left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a "Crusade?" Why or why not?
So Islam is a good thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:45:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I ask people to think about their sources of information or, more broadly, to think. I understand why that might offend you. Micro-aggressions and all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:23:23 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that's left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a "Crusade?" Why or why not? There is no universal, or even general, consensus on what campaigns should be properly titled as "crusades." Different schools of crusade scholarship have different criteria for it. The situation is not aided by the fact that "crusade" is not a term that even existed at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:28:51 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Crusades were a defensive operation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:36:42 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have invited 2Minky to engage in a discussion, informed by actual scholarship and well-informed familiarity with the sources and the historiography, but, alas, I don't believe I'll get any such thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
what happened to the drive by liberals? I thought they were going to tear apart "that bigots" argument rather than just drop a logical phallacy and go off and post on Reddit how they made a stand against islamaphobia. very sad. Low energy. He is on thin ice and has to be careful if his GD postings He will only attempt to get you to say something CoC violation |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:41:31 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stupidity, irresponsibility, and lack of objectivity on the Left does not excuse it on the Right. That video star with the strawman presumption that evoking the historical Christian concept of Crusade is supposedly the only argument used to counter the concept of “Jihad” (as opposed to the any sober comparison of the rise of Islam relative to the rise of any other human civilization). It then sets about seemingly creating a broad definition of “Jihad” and thus allowing a depiction of every slave raid or skirmish along the expanding borders of Islamic civilization as a “Jihad Battle.” It then established a very narrow definition of “Crusade,” and depicts only large scale, named battles, and only those against Islamic armies. The intent is obvious: to make the history of violence and warfare fought in the name of Christianity look like a meager joke in comparison to the monolithic onslaught of the Saracens (which continues today, naturally). Some here eat that shit up. It speaks to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not? First, I’m not defending the video or “Dr. Bill”, I’ve neither seen this current video, or to my knowledge, any of Dr. Bill’s other videos. My points were mainly in response to the posts in this thread about the subject, rather than the video in the OP. I should have made that clear. Secondly, and I know I’ll get flamed for this, but the Crusades were not something that could be justified with biblical scripture. They were outside the realm of biblical doctrine. I understand why they did it, but history would have perhaps judged them less harshly had they not chosen to use Christianity as not only a motivation, but also a justification. It was neither. In a nutshell, that’s the post I’m trying to make. You can’t justify the Crusades with biblical doctrine, but you can justify jihad with the teachings of the koran. The double standard and unwillingness to criticize anything islam is not only tiresome, it’s counterproductive. We’re often told by leftists that unless you’re a scholar you can’t criticize islam, yet those same people have no problem pointing out how violent the Old Testament is, never realizing the supreme irony. ETA: Sorry if my response seems rushed, I’m out of time at the moment as I about to board, but I’ll do my best to come back and continue the conversation, thanks. That video star with the strawman presumption that evoking the historical Christian concept of Crusade is supposedly the only argument used to counter the concept of “Jihad” (as opposed to the any sober comparison of the rise of Islam relative to the rise of any other human civilization). It then sets about seemingly creating a broad definition of “Jihad” and thus allowing a depiction of every slave raid or skirmish along the expanding borders of Islamic civilization as a “Jihad Battle.” It then established a very narrow definition of “Crusade,” and depicts only large scale, named battles, and only those against Islamic armies. The intent is obvious: to make the history of violence and warfare fought in the name of Christianity look like a meager joke in comparison to the monolithic onslaught of the Saracens (which continues today, naturally). Some here eat that shit up. It speaks to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:43:32 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Fourth Crusade is an interesting case study in poor estimation of expected muster, an ambitious contract, ad hoc contracts and shifting circumstances, and application of Just War Theory. There is no universal, or even general, consensus on what campaigns should be properly titled as "crusades." Different schools of crusade scholarship have different criteria for it. The situation is not aided by the fact that "crusade" is not a term that even existed at the time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that's left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a "Crusade?" Why or why not? There is no universal, or even general, consensus on what campaigns should be properly titled as "crusades." Different schools of crusade scholarship have different criteria for it. The situation is not aided by the fact that "crusade" is not a term that even existed at the time.
Not to mention the fact that after they were done dispatching the Muslim invaders, the benevolent Christians turned their attention to the Inquisitions. Oh well. I know enough that Christianity GOOD. Crusades GOOD. Christianity = Western Civilization. You disagree, then you are SJW Muslim lover who HATE western civilization! You bad!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:47:34 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... There is no universal, or even general, consensus on what campaigns should be properly titled as "crusades." Different schools of crusade scholarship have different criteria for it. The situation is not aided by the fact that "crusade" is not a term that even existed at the time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that's left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a "Crusade?" Why or why not? There is no universal, or even general, consensus on what campaigns should be properly titled as "crusades." Different schools of crusade scholarship have different criteria for it. The situation is not aided by the fact that "crusade" is not a term that even existed at the time. But, the stuff on that map doesn’t even seem to cover named battles in even the most widely understood definitions, focused just on the Holy Land and just on campaigns in widely understood “numbered” crusades. It’s an absurd strawman, like everything else posted by “Dr. Bill.” What it really serves to do is to identify those who get all their history knowledge straight from him, as their apparent only source. Take, for example, the numerous posters who cite the “three books” of Islam. That’s a clear “Dr. Bill” giveaway, as that is one of his inventions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:53:09 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And nobody even paid attention to my comment about the Albigensian Crusades (initiated by the Pope) that resulted in a few hundred thousand non Muslims being killed.
Not to mention the fact that after they were done dispatching the Muslim invaders, the benevolent Christians turned their attention to the Inquisitions. Oh well. I know enough that Christianity GOOD. Crusades GOOD. Christianity = Western Clivilian. You disagree, then you are SJW Muslim lover who HATE western civilization! You bad!!! The inquisition, as an institution of the church, wasn't what most think of it as. Mostly, the inquisition made great efforts to correct heresy and behavior before forceful coercion or punishment. Generally you had to continually persist in public heretical statements, in defiance of the church, to be subject to serious punishment. The inquisition was also much more likely to stick to the actual rules concerning things like torture than the secular law apparatus. Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition of Isabella's Spain were anomalous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:59:34 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Augustine's statements on war (and, let's face it, he set the tone for "Just War" through the Middle Ages) were decidedly slanted harsher on schismatics than even pagans. The inquisition, as an institution of the church, wasn't what most think of it as. Mostly, the inquisition made great efforts to correct heresy and behavior before forceful coercion or punishment. Generally you had to continually persist in public heretical statements, in defiance of the church, to be subject to serious punishment. The inquisition was also much more likely to stick to the actual rules concerning things like torture than the secular law apparatus. Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition of Isabella's Spain were anomalous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And nobody even paid attention to my comment about the Albigensian Crusades (initiated by the Pope) that resulted in a few hundred thousand non Muslims being killed.
Not to mention the fact that after they were done dispatching the Muslim invaders, the benevolent Christians turned their attention to the Inquisitions. Oh well. I know enough that Christianity GOOD. Crusades GOOD. Christianity = Western Clivilian. You disagree, then you are SJW Muslim lover who HATE western civilization! You bad!!! The inquisition, as an institution of the church, wasn't what most think of it as. Mostly, the inquisition made great efforts to correct heresy and behavior before forceful coercion or punishment. Generally you had to continually persist in public heretical statements, in defiance of the church, to be subject to serious punishment. The inquisition was also much more likely to stick to the actual rules concerning things like torture than the secular law apparatus. Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition of Isabella's Spain were anomalous. Christianity #1!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 1:03:13 AM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 1:06:09 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your one problem is The Koran Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not? First, I’m not defending the video or “Dr. Bill”, I’ve neither seen this current video, or to my knowledge, any of Dr. Bill’s other videos. My points were mainly in response to the posts in this thread about the subject, rather than the video in the OP. I should have made that clear. Secondly, and I know I’ll get flamed for this, but the Crusades were not something that could be justified with biblical scripture. They were outside the realm of biblical doctrine. I understand why they did it, but history would have perhaps judged them less harshly had they not chosen to use Christianity as not only a motivation, but also a justification. It was neither. In a nutshell, that’s the post I’m trying to make. You can’t justify the Crusades with biblical doctrine, but you can justify jihad with the teachings of the koran. The double standard and unwillingness to criticize anything islam is not only tiresome, it’s counterproductive. We’re often told by leftists that unless you’re a scholar you can’t criticize islam, yet those same people have no problem pointing out how violent the Old Testament is, never realizing the supreme irony. ETA: Sorry if my response seems rushed, I’m out of time at the moment as I about to board, but I’ll do my best to come back and continue the conversation, thanks. That video star with the strawman presumption that evoking the historical Christian concept of Crusade is supposedly the only argument used to counter the concept of “Jihad” (as opposed to the any sober comparison of the rise of Islam relative to the rise of any other human civilization). It then sets about seemingly creating a broad definition of “Jihad” and thus allowing a depiction of every slave raid or skirmish along the expanding borders of Islamic civilization as a “Jihad Battle.” It then established a very narrow definition of “Crusade,” and depicts only large scale, named battles, and only those against Islamic armies. The intent is obvious: to make the history of violence and warfare fought in the name of Christianity look like a meager joke in comparison to the monolithic onslaught of the Saracens (which continues today, naturally). Some here eat that shit up. It speaks to them. The video made no mention of the Koran. It instead claimed to compare like with like regarding the concepts of Crusades and Jihad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 1:08:34 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The crusades ended when the Christians grew tired of killing so many Muslims. Very tragic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 1:16:17 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just the usual shit one would learn in history classes in high school and undergrad. I probably learned that the crusades weren’t the best thing ever for everyone given the prevalence of Jews where I grew up, but nothing particularly deep. I don’t think much of the crusades. I do think it is amusing how an elite cadre of blowhards use the crusades to build some kinda wacky identity trip, like they are fightng in some end of the world battle against demonic savages. That shit seems a lot like the blustery crap Islamists spew. Birds and feathers. YMMV. If the Crusades wouldn't of happened, you have no bacon. You must hate freedom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 1:23:55 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shit yeah. Fucking serious heretics got what they deserved. Christianity #1!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And nobody even paid attention to my comment about the Albigensian Crusades (initiated by the Pope) that resulted in a few hundred thousand non Muslims being killed.
Not to mention the fact that after they were done dispatching the Muslim invaders, the benevolent Christians turned their attention to the Inquisitions. Oh well. I know enough that Christianity GOOD. Crusades GOOD. Christianity = Western Clivilian. You disagree, then you are SJW Muslim lover who HATE western civilization! You bad!!! The inquisition, as an institution of the church, wasn't what most think of it as. Mostly, the inquisition made great efforts to correct heresy and behavior before forceful coercion or punishment. Generally you had to continually persist in public heretical statements, in defiance of the church, to be subject to serious punishment. The inquisition was also much more likely to stick to the actual rules concerning things like torture than the secular law apparatus. Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition of Isabella's Spain were anomalous. Christianity #1!!! Seriously, WTF, dude? I get that you don't like Christianity, but your responses are just weird and off-putting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 1:58:54 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Baloney How does it feel to be a sucker? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Very timely thread. I was watching the History channel a couple days ago and they covered this. The Christians were greedy and blood thirsty religious fanatics who slaughtered millions of unarmed peace loving Muslims.. The crusades ended when the Christians grew tired of killing so many Muslims. Very tragic. How does it feel to be a sucker? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 2:13:09 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed, this is tragic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The crusades ended when the Christians grew tired of killing so many Muslims. Very tragic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 2:14:34 AM EDT
[#48]
no!... the muslims were just peaceful tree huggers at one with Mother Earth..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 2:30:05 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stupidity, irresponsibility, and lack of objectivity on the Left does not excuse it on the Right. That video star with the strawman presumption that evoking the historical Christian concept of Crusade is supposedly the only argument used to counter the concept of “Jihad” (as opposed to the any sober comparison of the rise of Islam relative to the rise of any other human civilization). It then sets about seemingly creating a broad definition of “Jihad” and thus allowing a depiction of every slave raid or skirmish along the expanding borders of Islamic civilization as a “Jihad Battle.” It then established a very narrow definition of “Crusade,” and depicts only large scale, named battles, and only those against Islamic armies. The intent is obvious: to make the history of violence and warfare fought in the name of Christianity look like a meager joke in comparison to the monolithic onslaught of the Saracens (which continues today, naturally). Some here eat that shit up. It speaks to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So, you’re asking me to watch this video, cross reference it against my understanding of things, and break down where “Dr. Bill” is once again misleading or outright wrong... again. I’ve spent way too much time doing just that related to previous crap from that man since he first because a thing to bother, or think it worth continuing. The burden of proof is on him to tell me why he’s an authority - and he’s failed miserable. His continued irrelevant tossing about of his “PhD” status doesn’t help. There are plenty of legitimate historians and what not who’ve written plenty on these subjects. Get you history however you see fit. Even plenty of videos on YouTube, no doubt, but, they don’t hit the right tone with a certain crowd here, so they wallow in low rating while as “Dr. Bill” gets threads started. Then again, neither is Warner. But, he tells you things that are in line with your prejudices, so there you go. Let the circle jerk continue. Don’t let me get in the way. What do I know though, I’m just a lowly, bigoted ‘teener. Do you except the initial “Dr. Bill” premise that the way to compare “Jihad” and “Crusade” as a concept is to look at the locations and numbers of battled done in those names? Do you believe those which he plotted are chosen and depicted using the same criteria? Have you studied the rise of other world civilizations? How would you react to some Leftist rambling about the evil United States by citing the Papal crusades, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Indian Removal Act (which he would insist was a “genocide,” naturally) and President Bush’s use of the term Crusade, thus linking different States, contexts, motivations, and eras into one forced narrative in order to make a polemic point and riled up a bunch of idiots prone to anti-Western and anti- American bias? Would you: 1) demand anyone point out which particular historical event in the rabble was inaccurate? 2) suggest that maybe some context would help? Also... have you heard of the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders? Any thoughts as to why that’s left out? Would you consider the Spanish Reconquista a “Crusade?” Why or why not? First, I’m not defending the video or “Dr. Bill”, I’ve neither seen this current video, or to my knowledge, any of Dr. Bill’s other videos. My points were mainly in response to the posts in this thread about the subject, rather than the video in the OP. I should have made that clear. Secondly, and I know I’ll get flamed for this, but the Crusades were not something that could be justified with biblical scripture. They were outside the realm of biblical doctrine. I understand why they did it, but history would have perhaps judged them less harshly had they not chosen to use Christianity as not only a motivation, but also a justification. It was neither. In a nutshell, that’s the post I’m trying to make. You can’t justify the Crusades with biblical doctrine, but you can justify jihad with the teachings of the koran. The double standard and unwillingness to criticize anything islam is not only tiresome, it’s counterproductive. We’re often told by leftists that unless you’re a scholar you can’t criticize islam, yet those same people have no problem pointing out how violent the Old Testament is, never realizing the supreme irony. ETA: Sorry if my response seems rushed, I’m out of time at the moment as I about to board, but I’ll do my best to come back and continue the conversation, thanks. That video star with the strawman presumption that evoking the historical Christian concept of Crusade is supposedly the only argument used to counter the concept of “Jihad” (as opposed to the any sober comparison of the rise of Islam relative to the rise of any other human civilization). It then sets about seemingly creating a broad definition of “Jihad” and thus allowing a depiction of every slave raid or skirmish along the expanding borders of Islamic civilization as a “Jihad Battle.” It then established a very narrow definition of “Crusade,” and depicts only large scale, named battles, and only those against Islamic armies. The intent is obvious: to make the history of violence and warfare fought in the name of Christianity look like a meager joke in comparison to the monolithic onslaught of the Saracens (which continues today, naturally). Some here eat that shit up. It speaks to them. People flip out if you attempt to even remotely tie islamic terroism to islam, “That’s not islam! That’s not what islam teaches! islam is a religion of peace! Those people aren’t real followers of islam!”, yet they absolutely fall all over themselves at the chance to compare something that is clearly not Christian to Christianity. That’s not conjecture or hyperbole, it’s a fact. Look right here on this page to see that ignorance on parade. The crusades, inquisition and other travesties are not Christian and have no basis whatsoever in Christian doctrine. The crusades and the inquisition were perpetrated by the Catholic Church, which is one sect of Christianity. “But the Crusades! But that lady that bombed an abortion clinic!”. Show me where there’s an edict, authority or justification for that in Christian doctrine. Hint: It’s not there. I’m not saying you’re guilty of the above, I’m simply telling you why it irks me, and so many others. I should have stated more clearly that my objections were not about the video itself, but rather some of the points being raised thereafter, apologies. As far as the Dr. Bill guy, I haven’t seen the video and don’t care enough to watch it honestly, but if your summation is accurate, that’s a foolish way to present it. I’m not sure why anyone would feel the need to gild the lily when it comes to this subject, let the truth speak for itself. For the TLDR crowd: Violence is not a Christian doctrine. Violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity is heretical, no excuse or justification for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 2:31:27 AM EDT
[#50]
I'm watching Knightfall right now. Not speaking in reference to the show, but man, historically speaking the Templars got a raw deal.
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
