Muslims Against Crusades aim to spoil the wedding
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
It’s a bit rich using the word crusades against the British. Our input was very restrained when compared to the French, Italians and some others. Much has been made of Richard’s involvement but he was born, lived and died a Frenchman. I think he only spent one fortnight’s holiday in England. And, of course, despite what Hollywood want you to think, he wasn’t Scottish, although to be fair, that might have been Connery’s attempt at a French accent. We’ll never know.
The crusades were not a religious war as such but an attempt by the church – the Holy Roman Empire, i.e. the western catholic branch, a political entity that fought for control of Europe – to gather funds and political strength. The notorious fourth crusade was actually a war between the western catholic church and the eastern – now Coptic more or less – one.
The then western pope, on hearing of all the death, rape and pillaging that went on in the destruction of Constantinople, got a bit miffed, thinking that killing thousand of christians was not on the 4th’s to-do list but he was soon congratulating them when they came back with money for him.
There were crusades against Spain as well.
Most of the crusades were dreadfully organised with little thought for provisions and often made up of farmers and others who had never used weapons who followed the cavalry. That said, for the first crusade they practiced on Jews in Germany and France to get in the swing of things.
The British were normally reluctant to get involved in the crusades. Politically it was seen by the holy roman empire to be a bit of a troublesome neighbour, always fighting France but we appear to be making up for it now.
The crusades are still something current in the muslim world. They get all upset by them, so the use of the word crusades is clever advertising. It has little emotive effect on westerners as it is very little talked of outside Monty Python. I remember our history teacher describing the crusades, from a western point of view, as pointless and mad although for a time it did make a profit.
Not forgetting the very first one against the Cathars, nominally, everyone was fair game too, that ended up with the inquisition 130 years before they moved across and into the Spanish mountains in their program of spiritual cleansing.The crusades were not a religious war as such but an attempt by the church – the Holy Roman Empire, i.e. the western catholic branch, a political entity that fought for control of Europe – to gather funds and political strength. The notorious fourth crusade was actually a war between the western catholic church and the eastern – now Coptic more or less – one.
The then western pope, on hearing of all the death, rape and pillaging that went on in the destruction of Constantinople, got a bit miffed, thinking that killing thousand of christians was not on the 4th’s to-do list but he was soon congratulating them when they came back with money for him.
There were crusades against Spain as well.
Most of the crusades were dreadfully organised with little thought for provisions and often made up of farmers and others who had never used weapons who followed the cavalry. That said, for the first crusade they practiced on Jews in Germany and France to get in the swing of things.
The British were normally reluctant to get involved in the crusades. Politically it was seen by the holy roman empire to be a bit of a troublesome neighbour, always fighting France but we appear to be making up for it now.
The crusades are still something current in the muslim world. They get all upset by them, so the use of the word crusades is clever advertising. It has little emotive effect on westerners as it is very little talked of outside Monty Python. I remember our history teacher describing the crusades, from a western point of view, as pointless and mad although for a time it did make a profit.
RemainAllHoof said:
Sheeda, why are they mentioning the crusades? I don't think anyone in this country would say they support the crusades. (Or am I wrong? Or missing something?)
They might as well call themselves Muslims Against Profiteroles. At least they might offend someone. (Or am I wrong? Or missing something?)
Balmoral Green said:
There was a bunch of mean spirited attention whoring Monarchy hating left wing militant gay rights activists moved on from Soho Square yesterday. Police said they were likely to cause a breach of the peace. I think my bro was in there with them, what a t
t!
A clear case of excommunication from the family... t!Balmoral Green said:
There was a bunch of mean spirited attention whoring Monarchy hating left wing militant gay rights activists moved on from Soho Square yesterday. Police said they were likely to cause a breach of the peace. I think my bro was in there with them, what a tt!
I would have thought the other Queen of England (Elton John) being in attendance with his catcher would have calmed the militant gay crowd.t!Jimbeaux said:
I would have thought the other Queen of England (Elton John) being in attendance with his catcher would have calmed the militant gay crowd.
That's what I was thinking. With Wills taking over from his mother as the patron of Elton's rather impressive AIDS charity it seems particularly odd. Maybe these people were just suffering from low IQs?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff