(October 2, 2015 at 1:53 am)ronedee Wrote:(October 2, 2015 at 12:13 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm thinking Ronnie is going to bail out from this barrage of facts.
Though conducted with the blessing of the Catholic Church, the Crusades were carried out by governmental authorities: Dukes, Kings, and so on. So you can't refer to them as an inquisition directed by RCC. Unfortunately, RCC gets most of the credit from a flag.
The First Crusade famously slaughtered almost all the inhabitants of Jersusalem, most of whom were Christians and Jews. The Crusades were essentially a barbarian invasion of the civilized middle east and like many barbarian invasions they were quite brutal but succeeded in the end in civilizing the barbarians. And eventually recovering most of what was taken.
Here's what you wrote: "You strain over maybe 20,000 killed by Christians in the dark ages no less." You make no mention of official approval; you are saying that Christians in the Dark Ages killed around twenty thousand folks. And then above you not only contradict your own claim, you start backtracking without acknowledging it.
You're clearly dissimulating in order to avoid admitting that that number you cited was a matter of argumentum ex culo.
(October 2, 2015 at 1:53 am)ronedee Wrote: That said, those were barbaric times which called for drastic measures. aka WAR. Actually you could thank the Crusaders that you are not wearing a turban, and praying to Allah now!
Appeal to emotion, appeal to hypothetical, and special pleading. Who cares how many fallacies you can jam into one sentence? Crusaders were Christians. How did they so conspicuously miss the central message of the alleged "Prince of Peace"? "Drastic times"! The Crusades were glorified looting raids.
(October 2, 2015 at 1:53 am)ronedee Wrote: My reference was to innocents wrongly accused, tried and killed directly by the RCC.
No, it wasn't. You said "killed by Christians", not "wrongly accused, tried and killed directly by the RCC".
A simple "I stand corrected" is not only more accurate as a reply, it would prevent the erosion of credibility that happens when you lie so plainly to rescue a point.
wrongly accused, tried and killed directly by the RCC I actually have no idea what that number could be. Neither does anyone else; when estimates run from thousands to millions!
I'll have better numbers for you in the future.... if I feel like it.
[/quote]
It's obviously not the case that you're an informed student of the era, and it obviously is the case that you view the truth as a convenient fiction. Under thosae conditions, any numbers you present are suspect.
