SOURCE:
http://www.christian-community.org/l.../crusades.html

"So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression--an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
______

The fact is that the Crusades were a "jihad" in reverse is easily proved by early Christian History. Muslims insist that Christians willingly converted to Islam. Three indisputable facts contradict that claim.

1. For the first 300 years of Christianity. the followers of Jesus would accept torture and death from the Roman Empire rather than forsake their commitment to Jesus. They believed any revocation of their declared faith would earn them a ticket into Hell. There is no reason they would have willingly changed their faith from Jesus to Muhammad except by force. Islam does not promise paradise for believers, as does Christianity. Even Muhammad said he did not know his final reward. That would only be determined on his judgment day.

2. Next, Islam had conquered Spain in addition to North Africa and the Middle East. When the Moors attempted to extend their empire into Europe, they were met at Tours by Charles Martel and were soundly defeated. From that point forward, Islam was pushed out of Spain. So, if Christians willingly converted to Islam, why did they resist it at Tours and push it out of Europe?

3. Christians never would have willingly given up their "holy" cities of Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Defensive?
 

Warrior-Mentor,

The Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have holy sites in these lands. Chronologically perhaps the Israelis have the oldest claim. Regardless of religion doesn't it seem wars are ultimately fought over land and resources?

How does one define defensive war?

I can see how someone would feel the Greeks at Thermopylae were fighting a defensive war when their country was invaded by Persia, or the examples of Belgium in 1914, perhaps Finland or the Poles defending themselves from the Soviets and the Germans respectively in 1939.

However when you have English, French and German armies stirred up by the Pope and attacking the Middle East how is this defensive in nature?

WM - Allow me in part to answer some of akv's questions.

All wars are fought over natural resources. Resources can be defined as mineral, warm water ports, terrain, and human labor to name a few. Irregardless of religion, France and England fought over timber, forests and shipping lanes. Some would argue that the war between Greece and Troy was not over a pretty face, but the expansion of territory, and yes, they shared simular faiths too.

Islamic migration beginning in the 8th century was nothing new. We have curtainly seen many wars of idealogy just in the past 100 years. But all wars, including A-stan, Iraq, and yes, here in the USA, we are at war over yet another 'natural resource', our very lives.

Wars themselves are defined as High, Mid, and Low intensity conflicts, Guerrilla warfare, war of attrition, etc. Vietnam has been argued as simply as a campaign of the Cold War. Europe is on the brink of collapse, our own system is in jeopardy.

If we are to win here or anywhere, we must put out the fires of any idealogy that threatens our survival.

That's all. WM, he's all yours.

WD

*

http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html

Richard

I am not over the top against Muslims.

I am, however, unwilling to tolerate islam - an ugly, intolerant, racist, totalitarian supremacist ideology.

There is a difference.

An inspiration to me is Father Zakaria Botros:

"My program is to attack Islam, not to attack Muslims
but to save them because they are deceived.
As I love Muslims, I hate Islam."

Perception Changes?
 

Wet Dog,

I agree with your post entirely. As the sole superpower, until someone can defeat our Navy, we just need to be a "spoiling state" and maintain the balance of power. But if that is what it is lets call it just that, instead of proclaiming our current foe as incorrigible be it a nation or a religion, since history has shown todays enemy might well be tomorrow's ally and vice versa. War is part of the human condition, and as an American I want her to do what is in her best interests. Richard made the lucid comment last year that Islam replaced Communism as the new boogeyman.

For example,

We are at war with the _____. The _____ are a savage, violent, people with a militaristic culture and past. From childhood the _____ ideology and beliefs are immutable, evil, and barbaric. The _____ are a ruthless disciplined enemy, with no regard for the value of life, they kill civilians, they even employ suicide attacks if needed, the _______ culture is simply a treacherous threat to our existence and way of life, the only possible solution unfortunately since this is the way things are and will always be is to wipe the _______ off the face of the earth like some disease, since unfortunately the only good ________ is a dead ________.


In the interest of saving time one could fill in the blanks by time period. But notice as national interests continuously change with time enemies become allies and vice versa.


1870 : Comanches, Apaches, Sioux, etc.

1917 : Huns ( Germans), Turks

1941-45 : Japanese, (Germans again if you like)

1945-1991 : Communists

9/11 to current : Radical Muslims

2050 : ?????

Wet Dog, this is the only point I am making, and I'm grateful for your service, and that of all of our vets.

Dr Mabuse,

I certainly agree a great deal of blood has been shed under the Islamic banner. We are agreed on the demographics of SF as well, which is why I spend a good amount of time on PS.com. IMO both playbooks have good and bad plays, so maybe it boils down to leadership, but people break the rules when necessary.

*

Just as Daniel Pipes and Geert Wilders have their differences, yet Daniel supports Geert in his free speech trail...

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...t=geert+wilder

Defensive war
 

Essentially, the argument that the Crusades were defensive goes as follows:

"St. Louis University scholar Thomas Madden has been exceptionally active in pointing out the widespread conquest and subjugation of Christian lands by Muslim armies prior to the calling of the crusades and, consequently, has like many scholars argued that the crusades were effectively defensive wars. He wrote,

Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world. While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning
an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it.(7)"

Source: http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com...ecrusades.html

For a more in-depth discussion, see Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades."

Defensive...
 

In 1094 what exactly caused Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus to ask western Christendom for help against the Islamic invaders?

The difference between what started the Christian Crusades and Jihad is that the former was a defense against the latter.

the crusade's real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim conquest, the crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WZYZ...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSgpk...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweS_...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nOg7...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUuH2...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/user/Occident.../6/C8MCl0bHVXo

http://www.youtube.com/user/Occident.../7/tdabtVzZi2E

YGBSM. Simply put for those seeking a simple explanation - turf wars...and it's still going on. :mad:

Richard

Robert Spencer on the Crusades:

PART 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ee4WzxV4c

PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msoop3doigk

PART 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GdfAwwYLXw

PART 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-wt8Sd1PTc

PART 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxrCjyb4x8

Thanks for posting that Sir, adding them to my favorites.