8000 Muslims massacred by White, racist European non-Muslims. All Euro vs Euro

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The tu quoque fallacy literally translates to "you too".  

Your entire post seem to be saying "see, Islam isn't the only religion responsible for terrorism. Other religions suck, too".

Yeah, you won't get any disagreement from anyone here.

I NEVER said you were excusing terrorism.

"You too" is an excuse; like a killer saying "I kill people of that land because one person from it killed too".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Example

In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]

I posted this example to you in my previous comment: The lawyer Verges tried to excuse Barbie of his crimes, by pointing to the crimes of French generals. In other words: "don't throw stones on people houses when yours is made of glass".

Terrorists do this: they kill you, and justify their crimes using crimes done by the other side.



I said, that doing a crime, will generate believers in the above. Thus; a reaction equal to it in magnitude, but in reverse.

---

We get it, Atlas - bad things have happened to Muslims.  But no atheist or Christian on the boards (as far as my spies are able to suss out) has ever been party to these atrocities you're so very, very fond of digging up.  Collectively, I'm sure we wish these had never happened.

But you're beginning to sound like a one-note Johnny.  Getting tiresome.

Boru

The board has visitors who never comment their opinions; topics like this are a good reminder to them.
The majority of people doesn't share your opinion; as it seems.

I'm not writing for the entertainment of people.

---

*shrug*  And some European Christians forced other European Christians to eat other European Christians.

But the Crusaders you referenced didn't eat Muslims because they were Muslims.  They ate Muslims because they (the Crusaders) were starving.  This isn't an example of religious persecution.

Boru

They didn't view Muslims as humans; that had religious bases, the Pope's speech also at that time indicates that.

If they were hungry enough, they would have eaten the Pope.  The British government systematically murdered one million of my Catholic forebears in four short years, but you don't hear me whinging about it.

Boru

[WinterHold]

Fulcher of Chartres report of what pope urban II said at Clermont is generally regarded as the earliest and most accurate.  Written around 1100, shortly after the Crusaders finished murdering anyone who did not look like them, he recounts how anyone going east to recover the holy lands from the muslims would receive a free pass to heaven.


https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/urban2-5vers.asp




Unusually, we have an actual letter from the then pope fuckface in which he still fails to mention that his precious 'holy land' had been overrun centuries earlier instead of being some sort of recent atrocity.  So rare that we get an actual document written in the hand of the criminal himself!

Urban II: Letter of Instruction to the Crusaders, December 1095
Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all the faithful, both princes and subjects, waiting in Flanders; greeting, apostolic grace, and blessing.
Your brotherhood, we believe, has long since learned from many accounts that a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted an laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient. More than this, blasphemous to say, it has even grasped in intolerabe servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified b His passion and resurrection. Grieving with pious concern at this calamity, we visited the regions of Gaul and devoted ourselves largely to urging the princes of the land and their subjects to free the churches of the East. We solemnly enjoined upon them at the council of Auvergne (the accomplishment of) such an undertaking, as a preparation for the remission of all their sins. And we have constituted our most beloved son, Adhemar, Bishop of Puy, leader of this expedition and undertaking in our stead, so that those who, perchance, may wish to undertake this journey should comply With his commands, as if they were our own, and submit fully to his loosings or bindings, as far as shall seem to belong to such an office. If, moreover, there are any of your people whom God has inspired to this vow, let them know that he (Adhemar) will set out with the aid of God on the day of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, and that they can then attach themselves to his following.

The church obviously sold "salvation contracts" to any knight contributing in the crusade.
If we replaced "Christ" with "the Prophet of Allah"; this will be an identical copy of what we hear from Jihadists today: the crusades were the Christian version of the Jihadi operations of today.

Also; it's the best way to enlist free soldiers who cost the pope nothing; knights across Europe had already finished their training without costing the Church a penny. All they need is the "cause"; and that was tailored by the Church: "avenge Christ who got desecrated by Muslims".

I wonder seriously about the amount of revenue the Church have made.

[Minimalist]

The church obviously sold "salvation contracts" to any knight contributing in the crusade.

I daresay it is even a little more complicated than that, Atlas.  Not better... probably worse... but certainly more complicated.  To oversimplify history, by the mid 11th century things had changed in Western Europe.  The Viking raids which had lasted for centuries had largely ended and the Vikings themselves were now xtians.  But 3 centuries of constant warfare had built up tremendous military establishments by the various feudal polities which were always looking to repel a Viking raid and when the Vikings stopped coming those did not instantly go away.  Instead, there was virtual constant low-grade warfare among xtian nobles trying to gain an edge over their rivals.  Everyone always concentrates on the concluding paragraphs of the Cleremont speech but it is the opening paragraphs which contains the real problem as the pope saw it.  Xtians were fighting other xtians.  So his "solution" was to redirect xtian aggression to the Islamic regions.

Yes, in the church's version of giving away ice in the wintertime he promised a free ticket to heaven to anyone who went to fight the Arabs.  Hey, costs him nothing to make absurd promises, right.  And those people were stupid enough to fall for it so why not play them for fools?

But his primary cynical goal was to stop xtians killing each other by getting them to kill muslims instead.  I guess the idea of not killing any one at all was a little too much for "god's representative on earth."

[The Grand Nudger]

Better that minor lords sought to take the lands of muslims than other christians. The crusaders themselves had entirely earthly expectations of the raidsl. Then there were the utilatarian (and highly profitable) schemes..like getting rid of all the useless street urchins in the childrens crusade...and selling them, ofc.

[WinterHold]

The church obviously sold "salvation contracts" to any knight contributing in the crusade.

I daresay it is even a little more complicated than that, Atlas.  Not better... probably worse... but certainly more complicated.  To oversimplify history, by the mid 11th century things had changed in Western Europe.  The Viking raids which had lasted for centuries had largely ended and the Vikings themselves were now xtians.  But 3 centuries of constant warfare had built up tremendous military establishments by the various feudal polities which were always looking to repel a Viking raid and when the Vikings stopped coming those did not instantly go away.  Instead, there was virtual constant low-grade warfare among xtian nobles trying to gain an edge over their rivals.  Everyone always concentrates on the concluding paragraphs of the Cleremont speech but it is the opening paragraphs which contains the real problem as the pope saw it.  Xtians were fighting other xtians.  So his "solution" was to redirect xtian aggression to the Islamic regions.

Yes, in the church's version of giving away ice in the wintertime he promised a free ticket to heaven to anyone who went to fight the Arabs.  Hey, costs him nothing to make absurd promises, right.  And those people were stupid enough to fall for it so why not play them for fools?

But his primary cynical goal was to stop xtians killing each other by getting them to kill muslims instead.  I guess the idea of not killing any one at all was a little too much for "god's representative on earth."

The Viking's period is totally dropped from my mind; mainly because they integrated with the European populations. I had more concentration on the Mongols. I figured out that they didn't cause much change to look into.
In other words; he was directing the knights' inner fighting to the outside. Richard the Lion heart didn't die in a crusade after all; he died in France, fighting other knights.

The idea of saving life wasn't preached at that time except by the Quran:

https://quran.com/5/32
Sura 5, The Quran:

Sahih International

(32) Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.


https://quran.com/17/33?translations=
Sura 17, The Quran:
Sahih International

(33) And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly - We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law].

[Minimalist]

The mongols were much later than the Crusades but it was the reaction to their repeated raids against the various muslim kingdoms that actually did cause the violent reaction against xtians which too many people think happened in the 7th century. 

The reason for that is quite simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani...he_Mongols

In modern times the Mongols are primarily Tibetan Buddhists, but in previous eras, especially during the time of the Mongol empire (13th–14th centuries), they were primarily shamanist, and had a substantial minority of Christians, many of whom were in positions of considerable power.[1][2] Overall, Mongols were highly tolerant of most religions, and typically sponsored several at the same time. Many Mongols had been proselytized by the Church of the East since about the seventh century,[3] and some tribes' primary religion was Nestorian. In the time of Genghis Khan, his sons took Christian wives of the Keraites, and under the rule of Genghis Khan's grandson, Möngke Khan, the primary religious influence was Christian.

[WinterHold]

The mongols were much later than the Crusades but it was the reaction to their repeated raids against the various muslim kingdoms that actually did cause the violent reaction against xtians which too many people think happened in the 7th century. 

The reason for that is quite simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani...he_Mongols

In modern times the Mongols are primarily Tibetan Buddhists, but in previous eras, especially during the time of the Mongol empire (13th–14th centuries), they were primarily shamanist, and had a substantial minority of Christians, many of whom were in positions of considerable power.[1][2] Overall, Mongols were highly tolerant of most religions, and typically sponsored several at the same time. Many Mongols had been proselytized by the Church of the East since about the seventh century,[3] and some tribes' primary religion was Nestorian. In the time of Genghis Khan, his sons took Christian wives of the Keraites, and under the rule of Genghis Khan's grandson, Möngke Khan, the primary religious influence was Christian.

They seem like they never cared about the religion of their enemy; to be honest they treated everybody with equal hostility from the Chinese to the Christians of eastern Europe. Even with the Islamic kingdoms of that time, actions done by the Islamic Khwarezmian kingdom was the reason it all started with the Middle East.

I didn't know that the early Mongols had Christians in their ranks, but I know about the big figures that converted to Islam like Timur:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur

Ironically he that didn't stop him from butchering other Muslims; just like conversion to Christianity didn't stop Christian Mongols from killing other Christians.

The only thing common between them and the vikings -in my opinion- is the integration with other populations, leaving the "bitter flavor" of Mongols emptying whole towns aside.

I think the religious stances of Mongol people (their tolerance to other faiths) were mainly because of their Tengriism.

[Minimalist]

Whatever the reason for it the point remains that the Mongols were an existential threat to islam which xtianity never was.  Mongol invasions were stopped at the Battle of Ain Julut but it was more an accident of history than any great battle tactics.  The Great Khan had died and most of the invaders withdrew leaving only a small covering force to watch the Mamelukes in Egypt.  The force was insufficient and the Mamelukes won the battle breaking the myth of invincibility that the Mongols had up to that time.  Shortly thereafter there was civil war among the Mongols and they were never able to properly chastise the Mamelukes.  In such a way did islam survive.

But they got the message.  They turned with fury on the Nestorians and Syrian Churches in their midst.  Can't say I blame them.  Xtians in the west were perfectly willing to slaughter eastern xtians whenever they got the chance!

[WinterHold]

Whatever the reason for it the point remains that the Mongols were an existential threat to islam which xtianity never was.  Mongol invasions were stopped at the Battle of Ain Julut but it was more an accident of history than any great battle tactics.  The Great Khan had died and most of the invaders withdrew leaving only a small covering force to watch the Mamelukes in Egypt.  The force was insufficient and the Mamelukes won the battle breaking the myth of invincibility that the Mongols had up to that time.  Shortly thereafter there was civil war among the Mongols and they were never able to properly chastise the Mamelukes.  In such a way did islam survive.

But they got the message.  They turned with fury on the Nestorians and Syrian Churches in their midst.  Can't say I blame them.  Xtians in the west were perfectly willing to slaughter eastern xtians whenever they got the chance!

Ain Jalut is a point of pride in Islamic history for me, actually I take pride in 3 historic Islamic victories:

1-Ottomans stopping Vlad the Impaler
2-Battle of Ain Jalut
3-Battle of Hattin

I believe they did the right thing in these battles. Muslims are rarely given credit for these events -in my opinion- despite the importance of them. The sons of the Khan didn't last long with the size of their empire getting larger, the influence of the civilizations they destroyed did haunt them -I think the first crack between the Khan's sons began, when one of them got too influenced with Chinese culture-. They lost their identity and rotted with time as all empires.

The Mongols delivered a severe shock to the region but over a small duration, the crusaders -on the other hand- kept raiding Muslims until the British victory in Palestine in the previous century:

Some British newspapers and magazines, including The Irish News, claimed it as the end of the crusades.[147] A US newspaper also made reference to the Crusades, specifically the New York Herald (see picture), referring to the last time Jerusalem was under non-Muslim rule in 1244 AD when a Khwarezmian army under Al-Salih Ayyub, defeated the Franks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jerusalem

That if we counted this opinion to be true.. I believe the crusades did more damage to Muslims.

[Minimalist]

The Crusaders never managed to do anything remotely as brutal as this:

http://lostislamichistory.com/mongols/

A full week of pillage and destruction commenced. The Mongols showed no discretion, destroying mosques, hospitals, libraries, and palaces. The books from Baghdad’s libraries were thrown into the Tigris River in such quantities that the river ran black with the ink from the books. The world will never truly know the extent of what knowledge was lost forever when those books were thrown into the river or burned.

More important than the books, however, was the loss of life. It is estimated that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 people were butchered in that one week of destruction. Baghdad was left completely depopulated and uninhabitable. It would take centuries for Baghdad to regain any sort of prominence as an important city.

And Baghdad was not the only massacre.