I’m always amused by liberals who tar the US with involvement in the Crusades. Sometimes I toy with them by saying things like, “Maybe some elements of the New York and Connecticut militias took part in attacking Damascus in 1150 or so, but certainly no US federal forces were involved.”
It is like pointing out to liberals what is happening to Christians and Jews in Muslim countries and you get a response about how they shouldn’t have ever been in Muslim lands or some bs about the crusades. Then you have to point out these populations predate the existence of Islam and that they are not white people from Europe.
Same with the right of return for palistinians. No one speaks of a right of return for jews to muslim lands.
“The truth is that the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression.” Except for the 4th, which conquered the Christian Byzantines, or the Northern Crusades, that conquered people who had never been Christian.
Oh.
OK.
So (assuming, for the sake of the argument) you found an exception to the rule, your point is what? That the Islamists and their Leftist defenders were right, and that this was just another case of Western Imperialism against the innocent peaceful spreaders of the word of Allah?
Or what?
My point is that Goldberg is at least as wrong as the people he’s arguing with. The Crusades were not “in every way” a defensive war against Muslims. And the exceptions were at least as important as the cases that fit his description.
Will, during war you may lose track of offensive vs. defensive. The fact remains that the crusades were in response to Islamic aggression. Period. What they might have become over a period of time is irrelevant to the point.
Would it help to talk about specific crusades? The first crusade seems likely to have been primarily in response to Islamic aggression, although there were other factors.
The Crusades were complicated. The first one was in response to Muslim aggression, among other things. And also inspired by a desire to control Jerusalem, ruled by a a different Muslim state that was in conflict with the one threatening Byzantium. Also inspired by a desire to acquire land currently in possession of somebody else.
The crusades outside the Levant were even more complicated. In particular, it’s hard to explain how invading Lithuania is an appropriate response to Muslim aggression. Or Byzantium. Or Arragon, Toulouse or Ypers.
I’m always amused by liberals who tar the US with involvement in the Crusades. Sometimes I toy with them by saying things like, “Maybe some elements of the New York and Connecticut militias took part in attacking Damascus in 1150 or so, but certainly no US federal forces were involved.”
It is like pointing out to liberals what is happening to Christians and Jews in Muslim countries and you get a response about how they shouldn’t have ever been in Muslim lands or some bs about the crusades. Then you have to point out these populations predate the existence of Islam and that they are not white people from Europe.
Same with the right of return for palistinians. No one speaks of a right of return for jews to muslim lands.
“The truth is that the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression.” Except for the 4th, which conquered the Christian Byzantines, or the Northern Crusades, that conquered people who had never been Christian.
Oh.
OK.
So (assuming, for the sake of the argument) you found an exception to the rule, your point is what? That the Islamists and their Leftist defenders were right, and that this was just another case of Western Imperialism against the innocent peaceful spreaders of the word of Allah?
Or what?
My point is that Goldberg is at least as wrong as the people he’s arguing with. The Crusades were not “in every way” a defensive war against Muslims. And the exceptions were at least as important as the cases that fit his description.
Will, during war you may lose track of offensive vs. defensive. The fact remains that the crusades were in response to Islamic aggression. Period. What they might have become over a period of time is irrelevant to the point.
Would it help to talk about specific crusades? The first crusade seems likely to have been primarily in response to Islamic aggression, although there were other factors.
The Crusades were complicated. The first one was in response to Muslim aggression, among other things. And also inspired by a desire to control Jerusalem, ruled by a a different Muslim state that was in conflict with the one threatening Byzantium. Also inspired by a desire to acquire land currently in possession of somebody else.
http://tenthmedieval.wordpress.com/material-motives-for-participation-in-the-first-crusade/
The crusades outside the Levant were even more complicated. In particular, it’s hard to explain how invading Lithuania is an appropriate response to Muslim aggression. Or Byzantium. Or Arragon, Toulouse or Ypers.