TOPIC: The Distorted History of Europe with Islam
The Distorted History of Europe with Islam 05 Jun 2017 17:47 #1
As this would go far too off-topic in the thread about the "London Bridge incident" and it deserves an own thread, this one.
You know what's funny here, I think both annabelle and Guest1041 are both right. There's definitely a fair number of Muslims who do hate the West, and who wouldn't even have to think twice if given the choice to impose Sharia law on Europeans and the West. That's how Islam works. Some of them would do it because they would view it as their duty to ''save us'', and others may do it because they want revenge, and still very much haven't forgotten about the crusades. Even though the Crusades were very much a series of defensive wars to push the Islamic invaders out of Europe. After Islam finished conquering much of the Middle East (which were Christian lands originally), and parts of Africa, it then tried expanding through Southern and Eastern Europe, where it was eventually stopped in it's tracks due to the Crusades and the Reconquista. If anything Islam owes an apology to Europe for it's acts of aggression in this period of history.
The vast majority of Muslims simply can't bring themselves to view it that way though. What does that tell us about them and their belief structure? I think it tells us they think conquering the West for Allah was a moral obligation, and that's the way most of them still view it. Hence why no apology is ever given for the invasion of European lands.
You can't say that those who want the blood and submission of the West aren't Muslims. They are Muslims, they're just Muslim extremists, and those who interpret the Koran literally. These people simply can't be reasoned with, they're gone in the head, and believe all those who don't follow the strict laws of the Koran word for word are ''unclean and ungodly'', and must be punished. They view the West and it's people as ''The great Satan.'' These extremists are also relentless in trying to radicalise moderate Muslims. Which also happens in isolation outside of any Mi5 or intelligence meddling.
On the flipside I think there is an agenda to make Muslim's the bogeyman and dedicated punch bags, which is being done to take all the attention and blame away from these hateful radical Jews. Who also have a rabid hatred for the West and it's people. Radical Islam and Judaism are pretty much one of the same. They're both primitive and backward faiths and belief structures which demand total submission, and which both persecute and murder non-believers or non-followers as ''evil and ungodly.'' It's more often than not their own behavior which is evil, and most of these religious freaks need strict laws to keep their own violent hateful behavior in check
As always, the "Crusades" were not "Christians vs Muslims".
Just like the "Lunasades" (if a cross -crux- is the Christian symbol, then the moon -Luna- would be the Muslim symbol) in Asia and Africa were not "Muslims vs Animists/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists".
Those large-scale and centuries long conquests were made to gain control over lands and people. Nobody would call the Colonial Era a "Crusade"; the primary objective was not to christen heathens into the Church (that was only a secondary objective to speed up the process, especially successfully performed by the Spanish in the New World), the primary objective is and always has been power play; control over lands (resources, strategic positioning) and people.
The same for the "Crusades".
You're mixing up the Reconquista of Spain and the battles against the Ottomans in southeastern Europe with the Crusade.
Even the mainstream admits at close reading that that is not justified.
The Crusades for The Holy Land were early "Zionist" attempts to gain control over Jerusalem.
If the Reconquista (pushing the muslims back to North Africa across the Gibraltar Strait) and the anti-Muslim campaign in SE Europe (pushing them back across the Bosporus) would be the cause of the Crusades, the focus would be on that.
As an example, the 4th Crusade, led by Pope Innocentius III.
During the reign of Pope Innocent III, the papacy was at the height of its powers. He was considered to be the most powerful person in Europe at the time.
Pope Innocent III spent a majority of his tenure as Pope (1198-1216) preparing for a great crusade on the Holy Land. His first attempt was the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) which he decreed in 1198. Unlike past popes, Innocent III displayed interest in leading the crusade himself, rather than simply instigating it and allowing secular leaders to organize the expedition according to their own aspirations.
Innocent III’s first order of business in preaching the crusade was to send missionaries to every Catholic state to endorse the campaign. Innocent III sent Peter of Capua to the kings France and England with specific instructions to convince them to settle their differences. As a result, in 1199, Innocent was successful in forging a truce of five years between the two nations. The intent of the truce between the kings was not to allow them to lead the crusade, but rather to improve the likelihood that they would provide assistance. For the army’s leadership, Innocent aimed his pleas at the knights and nobles of Europe. The pleadings were successful in France, where many lords answered the pope’s call, including the army’s two eventual leaders, Theobald of Champagne and Boniface, marquis of Montferrat. Innocent III’s calls to action were not received with as much enthusiasm in England or Germany. For this reason, the Fourth Crusade became mainly a French affair.
The Fourth Crusade was an expensive endeavor. Innocent III chose to raise funds by doing something previously unheard of in popes. He forced the entire clergy under his leadership to give one fortieth of their income in support of the Crusade. This marked the first time a pope ever imposed a direct tax on his clerical subjects. The pope faced many difficulties with collecting this tax, including corruption of his own officials and disregard of his subjects in England. He continued in his attempt to garner funds for his crusade by sending envoys to King John of England and King Philip of France. Both men pledged to contribute one fortieth of their own salaries to the campaign. John also declared that the tax would be collected throughout England as well. The other source of funds for the crusade was the crusaders themselves. Innocent declared that those who took the vow to become crusaders but could no longer perform the tasks that they had promised to complete, could be released of their oaths by a contribution of funds to the original cause. The pope put Archbishop Hubert Walter in charge of collecting these dues.
At the onset of the crusade, the intended destination was Egypt, as the Christians and Muslims were under a truce at the time. An agreement was made between the French Crusaders and the Venetians. The Venetians would supply vessels and supplies for the crusaders and in return, the crusaders would pay 85,000 marks (£200,000). Innocent gave his approval of this agreement under two conditions: a representative of the pope must accompany the crusade, and the attack of any other Christians was strictly forbidden. The French failed to raise sufficient funds for payment of the Venetians. As a result, the Crusaders diverted the crusade to the Christian city of Zara at the will of the Venetians to subsidize the debt. This diversion was adopted without the consent of Innocent III, who threatened excommunication to any who took part in the attack. A majority of the French ignored the threat and attacked Zara, and were excommunicated by Innocent III, but soon were forgiven so as to continue the crusade. A second diversion then occurred when the crusaders decided to conquer Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. This diversion was taken without any knowledge by Innocent III, and he did not learn of it until after the city had been captured.
Innocent viewed the capture of Constantinople as a way to reunite the schismatic Western and Eastern Orthodox Churches. His goal was to install the Latin (Western) ideals into the main center of the Greek (Eastern) Church. He saw the invasion as a way of making the Greek Church submit to the views of those that occupied their city. His tactics ultimately failed due to the significant differences between the two churches. The crusade did lead to the start of the Latin Empire’s rule of Constantinople, which lasted for the next sixty years.
One of the leaders of the Third Crusade, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, openly plotted with the Serbs, Bulgars, Byzantine traitors, and even the Muslim Seljuks against the Eastern Empire and at one point sought Papal support for a crusade against the Orthodox Byzantines. Crusaders also seized the breakaway Byzantine province of Cyprus; rather than return it to the Empire, Richard I of England sold the island to the Knights Templar. Barbarossa died on crusade, and his army quickly disintegrated, leaving the English and French, who had come by sea, to fight Saladin.
In 1195 Henry VI, son and heir of Barbarossa, sought to efface this humiliation by declaring a new crusade, and in the summer of 1197 a large number of German knights and nobles, headed by two archbishops, nine bishops, and five dukes, sailed for Palestine. There they captured Sidon and Beirut, but at the news of Henry's death in Messina along the way, many of the nobles and clerics returned to Europe. Deserted by much of their leadership, the rank and file crusaders panicked before an Egyptian army and fled to their ships in Tyre.
200,000 pounds in the early 13th century is something like 50-100 billion today. You could buy all of London or Paris with such an amazing amount of money.
Innocentius III was the most powerful man in Europe at the time.
If the intention was to kick the Muslims out of Spain (geographically not too hard; half of Spain was muslim and once you kicked them out it would be not too hard to defend the coast), then all that money would be more than enough.
But the objective was "get the Holy Land". Most Christians in Europe considered Rome the Holy Land, maybe with other christian centres, but not the faraway Jerusalem.
It makes much more sense that the people who called for this Crusade, were the jews of Europe. Of course sponsored by other Jews (the Venetian merchant republic).
As in any other war:
- the story is Group X against Group Y
- the reality is "the Elite from Group X with the Elite from Group Y against the commoners of Groups X and Y"
- money was the main driver
- purpose was control over people and strategic lands
- narrative is different from the actions
- the jews are scheming in the background
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things." - Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
|Topic subject||Relevance||Date of latest post|
|The evil of Islam and destruction of Europe||10.66||Wednesday, 16 September 2015|
|GREATEST CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY.||6.8||Thursday, 23 April 2015|
|Ukip won the argument on Europe and in Europe||6.71||Thursday, 12 December 2013|
|The War On Europe (Free Europe)||6.2||Saturday, 18 November 2017|
|Far right and Islam||6.03||Friday, 06 May 2016|
|Islam||6.03||Sunday, 16 August 2015|
|Islam for Singles||5.96||Wednesday, 20 April 2016|
|Misconceptions on Islam.||5.96||Wednesday, 03 February 2016|
|Women in Islam||5.96||Tuesday, 12 January 2016|
|Priest converts to islam, Why ??||5.9||Wednesday, 31 July 2013|