Originally posted by Jonathan Locke
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Crusades
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by MetakThe Koran say's the same thing, and there are more extremist islamic terror groups than any others, it's not often that you see Christians flying planes into building's is it?!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by M21SniperAnd when was the last time the US intentionally dropped a bomb into a skyscraper full of civilians?
After that there weren't intentional murders, but a lot of death civilians as part of the collateral damage
Comment
-
Originally posted by M21SniperEveryone bombed civvies in WWII....long before the US became involved.
Others certainly did much more horrible things, but the USA are not without some guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WatcherSure, I don't want to say that all were playing nice except the USA; just that the USA did some of the same dirty things too.
Others certainly did much more horrible things, but the USA are not without some guilt.
Comment
-
A good point was raised regarding the bombing of civilians in WWII, although I'm not sure this thread is the most appropriate place to debate it. Certainly not to single out the US in WWII, the Germans and Japanese started deliberate bombing of civilian targets. The British were less apologetic about it, with their 'area bombing' strategy. If anything the US was most insistant on at least trying to target strategic 'assets' rather than civilians in general. However, Dresden and Hiroshima had been cities that had not generally been targetted before being used for 'demonstrations' of devestation. 'Morality' isn't really the point IMHO, as it is not universal. Cannibals would say it's 'moral' for them to kill and eat other human beings. But I am curious as to the basis for the distinction, between say Hiroshima and 9/11. Is it the method (military bomber / nuclear bomb vs. hijacked civilian passenger plane), the target (entire city vs. large office towers), the overall context (open total war vs. 'peacetime') or the objective (total defeat of wartime opponent vs. forcing a policy change in a 'political' opponent)?
Comment
-
The Crusades were a defensive action against the Arabs who were invading Christian lands. IMO The Crusades were a good idea but horribly executed.
the extent to which the crusaders felt they were on a "defensive action" can be seen by what they did to the people, both the byzantines and the christians in the region, whom they were supposed to be "defending."
the byzantines and those christians soon had a new saying: "better than the turban of the turk than the tiara of the pope."There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by EricTheRedThe Crusades were a defensive action against the Arabs who were invading Christian lands. IMO The Crusades were a good idea but horribly executed.
However, the greatest Muslim danger to the Holy Land had come much earlier. Caliph al-Hakim, one of the Fatimid rulers of Egypt, has been assessed by one scholar as 'a psychopath, ruling by whim and terror.' He murdered his personal servants, his senior officials and military leaders; he issued and rescinded illogical orders whenever the fancy took him. He also attacked Christian and Jewish communities as he pleased and in AD 1009 he ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. News of this outrage reached Europe and undoubtedly helped to stimulate interest in the idea of freeing the Holy Land from the grip of the infidel - the unbeliever. [1]
1. Harris, Roberta L. The World of the Bible. 1995, Thames and Hudson Ltd,
London. p 175
Comment
Comment