United 93

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: United 93
Jewels
Agent
Member # 3364
 written Tuesday, May 16 2006 12:33 Profile Homepage #76
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Political purposes. Watergate ring a bell?

EDIT: Whoops! A little late on this one. Still though, Jewels, I think you need to seriously consider what you're saying. Say a particular interest group seized power after such authoritarian devices were established in our government. It's not much of a stretch from there before "religious police" or "thought police" a la Iran come into being, and then your very rights as a women could come into question.

The rights we enjoy live and die by how transparent our government is. I don't think it's a coincidence that the current regime is so secretive and the state of foreign and domestic affairs so craptastic for everyone except the wealthiest 1%. Don't be surprised if you see even Republican congressmen start to balk at these measures.
Yes, yes, watergate. Nasty stuff that. And the wrongdoers were kicked out of office for it, since it wasn't really the 'government' doing illegal activities, just individuals who happened to hold government office breaking the law.

If by 'not much of a stretch' you mean the repeal of the first ammendment. Then sure, I can agree with that. I see that very likely to happen in the forseeable future. :rolleyes:

Individuals will continue to abuse power, and they will continue to be brought to justice for it. But the chances of the government really turning into a dictatorship are about as good as TM being born again.

Not that I won't keep hopin...

[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:36: Message edited by: Jewels ]

--------------------
"Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05

"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
*i
The Establishment
Member # 6
 written Tuesday, May 16 2006 12:37 Profile #77
quote:
Individuals will continue to abuse power, and they will continue to be brought to justice for it. But the chances of the government really turning into a dictatorship are about as good as TM being born again.
Hate to say it, but similar sentiments were popular in Germany in the early 1930s. Granted things were a bit different, history shows that it doesn't take long at all for things to get really bad, especially under the cloak of the greater good and the noble lie.

[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:40: Message edited by: *i ]

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Zeviz
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
 written Tuesday, May 16 2006 13:58 Profile Homepage #78
quote:
Originally written by Jewels:

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Political purposes. Watergate ring a bell?

EDIT: Whoops! A little late on this one. Still though, Jewels, I think you need to seriously consider what you're saying. Say a particular interest group seized power after such authoritarian devices were established in our government. It's not much of a stretch from there before "religious police" or "thought police" a la Iran come into being, and then your very rights as a women could come into question.

The rights we enjoy live and die by how transparent our government is. I don't think it's a coincidence that the current regime is so secretive and the state of foreign and domestic affairs so craptastic for everyone except the wealthiest 1%. Don't be surprised if you see even Republican congressmen start to balk at these measures.
Yes, yes, watergate. Nasty stuff that. And the wrongdoers were kicked out of office for it, since it wasn't really the 'government' doing illegal activities, just individuals who happened to hold government office breaking the law.

If by 'not much of a stretch' you mean the repeal of the first ammendment. Then sure, I can agree with that. I see that very likely to happen in the forseeable future. :rolleyes:

Individuals will continue to abuse power, and they will continue to be brought to justice for it. But the chances of the government really turning into a dictatorship are about as good as TM being born again.

Not that I won't keep hopin...
This is exactly the problem with the kind of serveilance programm that Bush is running: it make the stuff done during Watergate completely legal. If you agree that it is legal for CIA to tape any conversation in the country, it is perfectly legal for somebody like Nixon to tape all conversations of opposition leaders.

If the current wiretap program existed during Nixon's time, Nixon would have had a legal right to point at any person and say "I want to know about all of his conversations". That's essentially what Nixon did during the Watergate.

I am not talking about some evil government conspiracy to repeal the First Amendment. All I am saying is that giving a president this kind of uncontrolled power will make it perfectly legal for him to do everything that Nixon got in trouble for.

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
 written Tuesday, May 16 2006 14:22 Profile #79
quote:
Originally written by Molybdenum:

quote:
I'd seriously question the motives of a Jesuit publishing that kind of nonsense - might he perhaps have credentials in culture war / clash of civilization garbage? I'd be genuinely surprised if he didn't have an agenda to peddle.
At least he is a historian with refereed publications to his credit what are your qualifications?
Madison Grant was one of the better-respected anthropological academics of his time, and his asinine historical theories lead directly to the Holocaust. Just because someone gets their research published by a respectable institution doesn't make their ideas valid. In fact, the fact that I, someone without any qualifications whatsoever, can readily point out reasons for which our Jesuit friend's thesis is a crock probably suggests it isn't as sturdy as you might like.
quote:

quote:
I'm getting craptired of arguing with people who refuse to substantiate their claims even when they are asked to. Frankly, Infernal, it makes me inclined to take everything you say with several extra grains of salt. Cite sources or go away.
I'm now firmly in this camp. Except I use the whole damn shaker.
I don't really believe in citing sources, because you can use them to prove just about anything. But I don't think that was directed at me anyhow, so.

quote:

quote:
The Crusades were motivated to some degree by religious fervor, but calling it a defensive, culture-based war is ridiculous. The political and economic motivators at work are far too heavy to discredit altogether.
This is a load of bolshoi. The crusades were incredibly expensive endeavours which cost many noblemen their fortune and ultimately their lives. A few people got rich but the vast majority (that returned) got nothing.
In the words of Urban II, "let robbers become knights." The European intellectual elite (such as it was) at the time considered the country overpopulated and rife with crime and generalized paucity. The belief in the Levant as a land of plenty, attainable through simple military service, was a strong motivator for at least the vast majority of peasant crusaders.

Yes, the Crusades cost a lot of noblemen their fortunes and lives (and commoners, too!), but that's hindsight talking. At the time, a good number of those who went into the first Crusade genuinely believed a land of milk and honey awaited them in the Holy Land. Dismissing that motivator out of hand is ludicrous - to say nothing of referring to one of the largest invasions in human history as a 'defensive war'.

...

re. the timeline: I'll see if I can find one for you. I can tell you that pitching it as a valiant struggle of the military against an entrenched bureaucracy is absurdly inaccurate, and scrambling fighter jets 'in defiance of orders' or whatever is insanely wrong (as in, doesn't happen in real life: getting one of them suckers off the ground costs more than you're liable to see in one place in your entire life, so wildcatting something like that would pose an intolerable risk in terms of both resources and human life.)

quote:
Originally written by Jewels:


If by 'not much of a stretch' you mean the repeal of the first ammendment. Then sure, I can agree with that. I see that very likely to happen in the forseeable future. :rolleyes:
Who needs a repeal when you do your best to sidestep the law? It's quite possible to simply dismantle the protections of the first amendment without actually going to the trouble of appealing it. I'd argue we're beginning to see that happen. And to be frank, I'd also argue that you don't care -- because you lead a sad, sick life of submissive subordination and the idea of non-oppressive authority is foreign and hostile to you.
quote:

Individuals will continue to abuse power, and they will continue to be brought to justice for it. But the chances of the government really turning into a dictatorship are about as good as TM being born again.

Not that I won't keep hopin...
Mother of all Freudian slips. ^_^

...

I completely concur with Zeviz. I think I need a shower.

[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 14:36: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 05:01 Profile #80
quote:
In fact, the fact that I, someone without any qualifications whatsoever, can readily point out reasons for which our Jesuit friend's thesis is a crock probably suggests it isn't as sturdy as you might like.
We are looking for valid reasons, give something that qualifies.

quote:
I don't really believe in citing sources, because you can use them to prove just about anything.
And without sources you can say just about anything and argue it has validity (see above). Refereed sources means that others in the field have tested your material and given it validity - you are not a lone wolf nor (more importantly) is your material unsupportable.

I would, for one, rather be well read then well opinionated.

In further reading, Wiki cites a number of sources (including Madden's) in its write up on the Crusades. It also links to other articles includinga histiography that follows the histiography laid out by Madden and agrees that Madden's line of thought is a major modern interpretation of the historical evidence and not a flaky Jesuit/Catholic wishing of the evidence. It does, however, allow that other interpretations exist ( and I have not denied).

quote:
...to say nothing of referring to one of the largest invasions in human history as a 'defensive war'.
History records that the Christian Byzantine empire was under attack by teh Muslims and sent out an appeal for aid to the Pope, from which the first Crusade arose. That is a major support for the tenet of a defensive war. Freeing the Holy Lands from Muslim rule, traditional Christian lands, is another support. Although occupied for up to four hundred years, until recently pilgrims had easy access to the Christian shrines. In 1009 the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed.

So yes, defensive war is quite supported by the evidence.

[ Wednesday, May 17, 2006 05:07: Message edited by: Mouthpiece ]

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Slarty
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 06:22 Profile Homepage #81
Sources:
Sources are simply one way of providing evidence to substantiate an argument. (My main point, Alec, was that arguments need to be substantiated.) In this case, since none of us have done original research regarding the various topics that have come up, and none of us have access to relevant primary sources, we really only have recourse to two methods of substantiation: citing sources, and using logic. Logic alone is never enough since it can't conjure the specifics of a situation out of thin air.

quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

History records that the Christian Byzantine empire was under attack by teh Muslims and sent out an appeal for aid to the Pope, from which the first Crusade arose... So yes, defensive war is quite supported by the evidence.
I think your conclusion that the evidence supports a defensive war is premature. Actually, I just think the word "defensive" is off. The First Crusade was indeed intended to reconquer lost territory, but that does not make it defensive. It involved attacking territories that were held by Muslims and were not attacking the West. For comparison, if Mexico suddenly invaded Texas to reconquer lost territory, it would be hard to claim the Texans were on the offensive.

quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

Although occupied for up to four hundred years, until recently pilgrims had easy access to the Christian shrines. In 1009 the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed.
The church was destroyed in 1009, while the First Crusade was launched 86 years later. I don't think 86 years qualifies as "recently."

--------------------
Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Jumpin Salmon
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 08:03 Profile #82
quote:
Originally written by Startucker:

The church was destroyed in 1009, while the First Crusade was launched 86 years later. I don't think 86 years qualifies as "recently."
This is opinion, I need a verifiable source to confirm your wildcat theories.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 10:06 Profile #83
Slar, to clarify (my point was not fully fleshed, I admit)

What was intended was that the Christian pilgrims had relatively safe and easy access to Jerusalem for much of the time after Jerusalem was conquered by invading Muslims. Around 1000 Christian pilgrims began to face serious harm and injury from Muslims and the destruction of the church in 1009 AD is one example of this. Now, sacred Christian places were being desecrated by Muslims and Christian pilgrims were facing danger and death. To protect the people and the institutions, to come to the aid of fellow Byzantine brethern and to free the Holy Land from foreign rule a crusade, the first crusade, was called by the Pope. This was a defensive war - to defend Christendom from the constant attacks and expansion of the Muslim world. The fact that some who answered the Popes call to arms had other agendas does not change the original motivation for the war.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written by Startucker:
The church was destroyed in 1009, while the First Crusade was launched 86 years later. I don't think 86 years qualifies as "recently."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is opinion, I need a verifiable source to confirm your wildcat theories.
Salmon, in rebuttal I point to the bible, where to God a thousand years is a day, then 86 years is a blink of an eye (and that qualifies as recent) ;)

[ Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:09: Message edited by: Mouthpiece ]

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 10:46 Profile #84
Slarty has a degree at an accredited university. What are Moses's qualifications? :P

EDIT: I fully endorse Slarty's analogy. Although the timescale is a little off - try a Mexican invasion in the mid-23rd century.

[ Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:49: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 11:06 Profile #85
Direct communion with God.

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Slarty
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 11:18 Profile Homepage #86
quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

To protect the people and the institutions, to come to the aid of fellow Byzantine brethern and to free the Holy Land from foreign rule a crusade, the first crusade, was called by the Pope. This was a defensive war - to defend Christendom from the constant attacks and expansion of the Muslim world.
I have two problems with this.

1) Be that as it may, that doesn't make it defensive. I haven't seen the actual papal proclamation (which I have to admit, after this much arguing, I'm kind of curious about), but it seems pretty clear that there was an explicit goal to reconquer these lands. The stated goal was not to protect people and ensure the safety of pilgrimages, as one might expect from a U.N. peacekeeping mission. This was an invasion, pure and simple. It might have been motivated by safety concerns. It was still an offense. Calling it defensive is twisting words, and that's all.

quote:
The fact that some who answered the Popes call to arms had other agendas does not change the original motivation for the war.
2) Uh... this goes both ways. The fact that the Pope may have had certain agendas in mind does not change the motivations of other people involved. Even if we assume the Pope said nothing about reconquering territory, the crusade didn't only happen because of his call to arms; if the people hadn't wanted to fight, they wouldn't have. (Wikipedia certainly seems to suggest that the existence of a large and violent class of mercenaries had a lot to do with the need for the Crusades.) So you have to take into account the motivation of all the Western elements involved, not just the Pope.

quote:
Originally written by The Worst Man Ever:

Slarty has a degree at an accredited university. What are Moses's qualifications? :P
I appreciate the approbation, but if I'm being compared to Moses, my degree is pretty much irrelevant. On the other hand, I seem to have ended up at the head of at least two religions (the Church of the Nine-Headed Cave Cow, and the Cult of Slartucker) compared to Moses' one. Hah!

--------------------
Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 11:37 Profile #87
quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

Direct communion with God.
I'm well-documented as the Messiah. I expect you'll withdraw your citation now. :P
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Jewels
Agent
Member # 3364
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 11:41 Profile Homepage #88
quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

This is exactly the problem with the kind of serveilance programm that Bush is running: it make the stuff done during Watergate completely legal. If you agree that it is legal for CIA to tape any conversation in the country, it is perfectly legal for somebody like Nixon to tape all conversations of opposition leaders.

If the current wiretap program existed during Nixon's time, Nixon would have had a legal right to point at any person and say "I want to know about all of his conversations". That's essentially what Nixon did during the Watergate.

I am not talking about some evil government conspiracy to repeal the First Amendment. All I am saying is that giving a president this kind of uncontrolled power will make it perfectly legal for him to do everything that Nixon got in trouble for.
Nixon was impeached more as a result of his coverup attempts and what he did with what he learned, then the actual acquisition of information. We have not/are not going to give the government the right to do whatever they want, just the right to be able to learn if they need to do something. If any individual uses the knowledge gained illegially (ie. causing the IRS to conduct biased audits as Nixon did) they should be prosecuted and removed from power.

quote:
Originally written by Alec:

Who needs a repeal when you do your best to sidestep the law? It's quite possible to simply dismantle the protections of the first amendment without actually going to the trouble of appealing it. I'd argue we're beginning to see that happen. And to be frank, I'd also argue that you don't care -- because you lead a sad, sick life of submissive subordination and the idea of non-oppressive authority is foreign and hostile to you.
I am very dissapointed that you ignored my most sincere question about your source and knowledge of the military action during 9/11 to instead attack my sick submissive subordinate self. None of which I deny, I am what I am. I was tempted to post in the 'If you were President' thread saying I'd be impeached for trying to become a totalitarian dictator.

ps. Who says it's a slip?

[ Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:45: Message edited by: Jewels ]

--------------------
"Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05

"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
 written Wednesday, May 17 2006 12:30 Profile #89
It's not an effort to ignore your request. I'm genuinely trying to figure out where my exact source is (it's been a while), and I'll have it up once I have.

And when I said it was a slip, I was being charitable. :P
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 04:39 Profile #90
Slar, no original account of the Council of Clermont exists. However, here is a reliable account of Fulcher of Chartres

quote:
Then the pope said that in another part of the world Christianity was suffering from a state of affairs that was worse than the one just mentioned. He continued:

"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."

Source:

Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, 1, pp. 382 f., trans in Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 513-17
Two things jump out to me. First, it is an explicit call to defend Christendom, second, there is no mention of reconquering lands, instead it is a call to "destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends".

Don't forget that the history of the Muslims up to this time was to have conquered by force about 70% of the Christian world and was at that time continuing to expand. The core of the Christian world was Palestine and the Holy Lands. This is about blunting a Muslim invasion.

There was no stated goal to conquer territory so calling this an invasion pure and simple is contrary to the explicit, stated call to arms issued by the Pope. Calling it an offense is twisting the words - it would be better to call it a mission of mercy, coming to the aid of Christian brethern.

Similar to the US freeing Europe and not "invading Europe" to reconquer lands won by the Axis powers. Even Wikipedia explicitly states that current historical research supports the primary motivation of the pilgrims (crusaders) was for spiritual and not earthly gains.

[ Thursday, May 18, 2006 04:59: Message edited by: Mouthpiece ]

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 05:02 Profile #91
You know, after re-reading some of the posts and doing a little brushing up on medieval history, we are probably in good stead to evaluate the first crusade as different from subsequent crusades, both from Popely motivation and from knightly motivation.

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
radix malorum est cupiditas
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 05:56 Profile #92
First off, I would like to apologise for beeing away so long. Holidays, tests, RL, etc.

I find it odd to see that people responded to an obviously unfounded and false statement as if it has some basis of truth. Either you're all paranoid or I have a reputation of making good arguments.
*shudder*

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Slarty
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 06:11 Profile Homepage #93
Thanks for the account; that was interesting. However, you have got to be kidding me.

quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

Two things jump out to me. First, it is an explicit call to defend Christendom, second, there is no mention of reconquering lands, instead it is a call to "destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends".
Have you ever heard of propaganda? Politics? The fact that something is explained as being defensive doesn't mean it is. And how the heck is a call to "destroy that vile race" defensive?

Regardless, you have not addressed my point about the fact that an invasion is an offense, period. I'm not arguing this point any more until you explain to me how Mexico attacking Texas could possibly be defensive. It's the same damn thing. The fact that the Pope utters pretty words about it is irrelevant.

quote:
Don't forget that the history of the Muslims up to this time was to have conquered by force about 70% of the Christian world and was at that time continuing to expand. The core of the Christian world was Palestine and the Holy Lands. This is about blunting a Muslim invasion.
The core of the Christian world was not the Holy Land in terms of geography or population, only in terms of religious significance. Well, guess what? The Holy Land is also the religious core of the Jewish and Muslim worlds! :eek:

Oh, yeah, and where the heck did you get that 70% figure? It makes no sense.

quote:
There was no stated goal to conquer territory so calling this an invasion pure and simple is contrary to the explicit, stated call to arms issued by the Pope. Calling it an offense is twisting the words - it would be better to call it a mission of mercy, coming to the aid of Christian brethern.
And in the Iraq war, there was no stated goal to obtain oil resources for the U.S.. There is clear evidence that this was one of the purposes of the war (note the italics, please), but the fact that a political leader didn't explicitly say so means that it can't be right. :rolleyes:

quote:
Similar to the US freeing Europe and not "invading Europe" to reconquer lands won by the Axis powers.
NOT similar. First of all, this was in the course of a war that lasting several years. They were not reconquering lands that the enemies had lived in for 400 years. Second of all, the U.S. wasn't reconquering anything at all! The U.S. didn't get ANY land as a result of that military action. Comparing WW2 with the First Crusade is absurd.

Fatman, I don't think there's anything else I can say to convince you. You're twisting words. Unless you want to rebutt my main point, which you've ignored, I'm done debating this.

--------------------
Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
The Immortal
BANNED
Member # 4
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 06:38 Profile Homepage #94
quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

quote:
Originally written by The Pope:

[QB]...to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
...
O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ!
...
Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians.
Mm. Racism.
Or, in other startling news: When the pope declares Muslims as sub-human, he does little to justify this war as a humanitarian relief effort.

(And for the record, I do agree with Alec, Slarty et al.)

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 07:02 Profile #95
quote:
Have you ever heard of propaganda? Politics? The fact that something is explained as being defensive doesn't mean it is.
The fact that something is explained as being offensive doesn't mean that it is. Interpretation of history to suit propaganda happens all too frequently and the crusades are a good example of that happening repeatedly (read any histiography of the events for proof)

quote:
And how the heck is a call to "destroy that vile race" defensive?
It's called reading in context. Don't isolate a statement from the context of the passage.

quote:

Regardless, you have not addressed my point about the fact that an invasion is an offense, period.
Repeatedly I have - but you ignore it. This wasn't about conquest of lands - even the conquest of Jerusalem wasn't about regaining territory per se - it's about protecting Christians and their institutions, of which Palestine was the center of this and was at the time the most densly Christianized part of the world. And I fail to see how you can state that an invasion is an offense, period then state that the US situation is different because the timelines are different. It seems to me the former statement refutes the latter. With respect to territorial grabs, the US could have stayed in Europe (they had the might), would that have changed the character of their defense? Or, the fact that original motivation and the sending of troops to Europe was different? Conquering lands was not part of the doctrine for the troops and only resulted after a successful campaign. From what I have read, the vast majority of crusaders returned to their homelands and only a very few set up kingdoms or were installed as rulers by the people they freed.

The 70% figure comes from two different texts (a round off of 2/3's actually) on medeival history.

The position I have taken is entirely defensible with reference to current historical interpretation of the events. However, the position you (and others) have taken is also a position that is accepted among historians. I don't think a single interpretation of the events will ever gain worldwide acceptance - nor do I know which current theory is more widely accepted but the two histiographies I have read seem to point to a movement among historians to the point of view that I espoused (above).

That being said, I will agree to disagree.

Edit: Another Historian's view found on the net:

quote:
In Western Europe the idea of a holy war developed later and for different reasons.
So much has been written about this that there is no need to enter into detail.3 First, we
must remember that what we call a crusade was, especially during the first century or
so, a pilgrimage, and those who took part in it were pilgrims; it was a holy journey (iter,
passagium), not a holy war. It was regarded primarily as defensive, that is, armed escorts
were to protect pilgrims on their way to the sacred shrines of Christendom and were to
recover or defend the holy sites in Palestine. This defensive character differentiated it
from jiha¯d, as did the fact that it did not advocate the forceful imposition of Christianity
upon others. In subsequent centuries, admittedly, and for some participants it did take
on a more belligerent character.
from http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR03.pdf

[ Thursday, May 18, 2006 08:03: Message edited by: Mouthpiece ]

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Slarty
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 08:24 Profile Homepage #96
quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

The fact that something is explained as being offensive doesn't mean that it is. Interpretation of history to suit propaganda happens all too frequently and the crusades are a good example of that happening repeatedly (read any histiography of the events for proof)
That's exactly my point. I wasn't using this to justify my argument: I was using it to debunk your argument that the Pope's (apparent) opinion could be taken as the truth. I'm glad you agree with me.

quote:
It's called reading in context. Don't isolate a statement from the context of the passage.
Any legitimate reading involves taking things in context AND taking things for what they are. I'm not discounting the fact that this passage was obviously full of rhetoric intended to stir up an army -- I pointed that out above -- but the fact that it is full of hateful language is hardly irrelevant, either.

quote:
quote:
Regardless, you have not addressed my point about the fact that an invasion is an offense, period.
Repeatedly I have - but you ignore it. This wasn't about conquest of lands - even the conquest of Jerusalem wasn't about regaining territory per se - it's about protecting Christians and their institutions
So is your answer, then, that you don't think it was an invasion at all?

quote:
Palestine was the center of this and was at the time the most densly Christianized part of the world.
I don't know anything about the 11th century demographisc of Palestine, but I'm pretty skeptical about that statement. Can you point me to anything to back that up?

quote:
Conquering lands was not part of the doctrine for the troops and only resulted after a successful campaign. From what I have read, the vast majority of crusaders returned to their homelands and only a very few set up kingdoms or were installed as rulers by the people they freed.
Prove the first sentence. Prove that conquering lands was not part of what the troops set out to do. I want military orders -- a papal proclamation to the people of Europe ain't gonna cut it.

And I don't care if most of the soldiers went home. Most soldiers go home (well, or die) in any conflict. Lands were conquered, crusader states were set up, and that happened pretty much wherever the Europeans went. Most lands were conquered.

quote:
The 70% figure comes from two different texts (a round off of 2/3's actually) on medeival history.
If it's not too much trouble, would you mind pointing me to those? I'm having a really hard time swallowing that figure.

quote:
I don't think a single interpretation of the events will ever gain worldwide acceptance - nor do I know which current theory is more widely accepted but the two histiographies I have read seem to point to a movement among historians to the point of view that I espoused (above).
Right, and if you want to characterize the crusades as ambiguous, I'll support that all the way. This whole discussion began because I brought them up as an example of Europeans attacking Muslims. That's a statement of fact; Europeans did attack Muslims. You jumped on top of it, saying the crusades were defensive. That's opinion.

(Other facts include that many lands got conquered, and that when it began (and no doubt in the middle as well) the Pope spoke many pretty words about the nobility of the battles.)

quote:
from http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR03.pdf
Extra large load of horse manure!

I became skeptical at the beginning of this essay, when the author defined "jihad" using a definition that is absurdly slanted and unquestionably unscholarly. Even if you want to make a case that the lesser jihad is the significant one, to not even mention the existence of different categories of greater jihad when you are explaining what the term "jihad" means is intentionally misleading.

The essay's thesis, that Islam always tried to impose its will by force and Christianity never has, is laughable. And what a surprise -- it is an essay coming from a Catholic institution!

Citing sources responsibly means checking for source bias and, if any seems likely, mentioning it. Calling the author just "another historian" is omitting some relevant information!

--------------------
Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 09:15 Profile Homepage #97
Mouthpiece: The Crusaders went to the Holy Land, seized land that had been held by Muslims for centuries, and occupied it. That's an invasion.

Your "sources" are laughable and your argument (as it stands) is untenable.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 10:38 Profile #98
Two sources used:

The Crusades (2d ed) by Jonathon Riley Smith of Oxford University and the previously mentioned work of Thomas Madden from St. Louis University. Both of which I will take over any of the unsubstantiated claims made by Slarty on this topic. Interesting to note that I have included a number of sources for my material, including two well respected historians in their field and yet no sources for any of the other material refuting my sources is given - must be none available. I also note that Dr. Smith is considered a leading researcher in this area and none of you (to my knowledge) are even medeival historians, nevermind crusade historians. I note that several of my sources appear on Wikipedia (Madden, Riley-Smith AND Dennis) from which you drew several statements. Perhaps you should refer to texts that are used at University level courses (Madden and Riley Smith) rather than the suspect history of Wikipedia.

Christian territory taken by Muslims included the western portion of Turkey, the Middle east, North Africa and Spain.

Its laughable that you all regurgitate popular arguments which are largely discounted by the leading modern research in this topic.

The other part I found funny as that I entered the topic not as an attack on statements you made but to correct the weak history of Rapix and Worst Man, sa well as Kel's statement
quote:
The Crusades, in theory, were a territorial grab, not an attempted genocide. They weren't trying to wipe out Jews and Muslims; they were just trying to get them out of the Holy Land.
It wasn't a war to wipe out Jews but it was a war to wipe out Muslims (from the Holy Land) after four centuries of depradations by Muslims. Yes, Christians attacked Muslims but Muslims did it first (for four hundred years prior to the crusades) and better (they won the crusades) and would end up being more concerned with Mongol invaders than Christians.

Read a couple of history texts then come back to me.

Kel, your "sources" are laughable as none are given. Slarty, Kel, point me to scholarly works that support your position and I will consider it, until then your arguments are untenable.

[ Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:03: Message edited by: Mouthpiece ]

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Slarty
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 11:30 Profile Homepage #99
*facepalm*

Fatman, the pejoratives are really unnecessary.

Look. This is very simple. Sources are one way to substantiate an argument. Logic is another. Sources DO NOT supercede logic... EVER. You keep responding to my critical questions by changing the subject to something else: either a different part of the topic, or something you think is wrong with my argument that has nothing to do with the questions I am asking... or you quote a source that says the same thing you did in different words.

QUOTING A SOURCE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE SOMETHING TRUE. It doesn't matter if it's the Pope, or a university professor, or Kelandon. Critical questions need to be answered on their own merits. Often, it is useful to quote a source for this purpose; you may be able to quote a source which has the answer to such a question. But such a source needs to explain how it came to its conclusion, and obviously, it needs to have done so with valid reasoning.

If you want to have this debate, you need to be willing to answer logical questions with logic, not with appeals to authority which are used to dodge criticism.

quote:
Originally written by Mouthpiece:

Both of which I will take over any of the unsubstantiated claims made by Slarty on this topic.
What are the unsubstantiated claims I have made? I want an answer to this one! Actually, I have made very few claims at all; mostly I have just questioned the claims that you have made. If you assert something, you are the one with the burden of proof.

quote:
Christian territory taken by Muslims included the western portion of Turkey, the Middle east, North Africa and Spain.
At no point in time has "the Middle east" ever been wholly Christian territory. Parts of it have been, but the whole thing? Please. (And you're telling me to read a history book? Sheesh.)

Given that pretty much all of Europe was Christian, and aside from parts of Spain, none of it was conquered by Muslims, I'm curious how part of Turkey, part of the Middle East, parts of North Africa, and part of Spain end up counting for TWICE as much territory as all the rest of Europe -- which I would think would be bigger in terms of geography and certainly in terms of population. I could be wrong about that -- I am no expert -- but it's certainly not half as much territory as all that. Again, I ask for a citation on the 70% figure.

--------------------
Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
moonear
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
 written Thursday, May 18 2006 11:54 Profile #100
Slarty,

you have made several unsubstantiated claims, go back and read your posts.

here are two that I have sought to rebut:

quote:
The First Crusade was indeed intended to reconquer lost territory, but that does not make it defensive. It involved attacking territories that were held by Muslims and were not attacking the West.
The first point, well I will not argue it again and the latter point is unsupported by a history of 400 years of constant, military expansion of the Islamic world.

quote:
The stated goal was not to protect people and ensure the safety of pilgrimages, as one might expect from a U.N. peacekeeping mission. This was an invasion, pure and simple.
I pointed you to recorded history of the Popes call to pilgrimage which explicitly stated that this was to protect people and not to take territory. If you read a text on this era, such as one of the two I cited, it will be littered with documentation that further supports this statement, i.e. this was not a statement taken out of context with the times but was made repeatedly time and time again.

Also, I provided you with two texts, both of which cite the territories taken from Christian lands AND provide documentation for their claim. Don't be lazy and demand I provide the original reference, go read the text and examine its documentation yourself.

IF you don't wish to read, here is a list of Christian countries conquered:
Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine 630 AD
Egypt 650 AD
North Africa, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco 700 AD
Spain 780 AD
Southern France 790 AD
Sicily 850 AD
Southern Italy 860 AD
Turkish borders 900 AD
Armenia and Georgia 1050 AD
Central Turkey 1070 AD
This represents about 2/3 of the Christian population of that time (Europe was not as densly populated). Note also, contrary to your understanding of history, that significant parts of Europe were under muslim control.

I've read both books, and I accept their validity but my statements won't sway your opinion. However, I will say that your arguments have not presented sources, I have presented sources and, with respect, quoting a source which refers to much documentation on the subject, that has been rigorously tested by academics and accepted in the academic world as a text for University level courses gives weight to its arguments. If you reject, for instance, Riley-Smith's qualifications to comment on the Medeival period I will do my own facepalming.

To assist you in getting started, a third text you are likely familiar with, and which will lend some credence to your arguments (but I respectfully disagree with) is Runciman - he will support more of the economic arguments and largely ignores the theological arguments - but note that this is an older source and may not have access to as much of the documentation that supports Christian piety as the strongest motivation.

[ Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:31: Message edited by: Mouthpiece ]

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00

Pages