[Bulaba Khan Jones]

This thread's OP is an interesting question. From the perspective of many Europeans, defending Byzantine interests and regaining lost territory from the Muslims presented an opportunity to not just defend the realm of Christendom (phone's spell check isn't working on that one), but to spread Christianity to Muslims (there was always a hope the Muslims would "see reason," easily noted in the Travels of Sir John Mandeville). Regaining lost territory has been an historically valid excuse to launch a major offensive or war (it should be noted that prior to the First Crusades, the Muslims and Byzantines and neighboring parties were still fighting).

By contemporary standards it wasn't really any more justified than any other war of irredentism. The entire set of Crusades were an utter failure except for the final concessions earned for Christian pilgrims traveling to Palestine. It should also be noted that, unsurprisingly, the Crusaders betrayed the Byzantines in the first crusade and even turned on them later and accelerated not just the collapse of the Empire, but handed much of Southeastern Europe to the Muslims.

[Rich]

The Muslims were terrorists by any standard. Relative to the Muslims, the Catholic Church were progressive feminists. The Muslim male chauvinist pigs were amazed at the freedom that "the Franks" allowed their women.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Rich, let's be honest here. The Church had already committed countless atrocities and acts of barbarism before the Muslims arrived out of the desert. The spread of Christianity by the Empire, its successors, and the many kingdoms that filled the vacuum left by Rome was often violent. I don't mean internally. Monolithic, monotheistic religions often spread through war, force, and oppression.

Before, during, and after the Crusades, the Europeans were actively persecuting and murdering people whose religious convictions were in doubt.

Women throughout Medieval Europe were hardly treated better than their counterparts in the Islamic world.

[Decky]

It would not be reasonable for you to demand reparations from the French for the Norman invasion under William the Conqueror.

Who has ever claimed that? It would however be totally reasonable for the English to take all of their land and wealth back from the aristocracy (who are mostly decedents of the Norman invaders) and then kick them out of the country.

[Rich]

@Bulaba Jones by today's standards all the states at time of the Crusades were terrorist and so were most of the pre state societies. The Pagan Roman Empire was a terrorist state and so was the Pagan Roman Republic that preceded it. I certainly don't argue that we should return to the moral standards of the Pagan Roman Empire or of the Roman Republic.

However it seems clear to me that Christianity added an extra layer of terror to the Roman empire. Paganism was therefore progressive and in conflict between Pagans and European Pagans the Christians were the relative terrorists. The universalism of Christianity and its progressive and equalising impulses came from Greco-Roman philosophy and the pagan religions, not from Judaism.

When it comes to the Crusades the same principle applies. Back then the righteous chose the lesser terrorism, Christianity against the worse terrorism of Islam and Judaism. I see war against Islam as not merely a right but a sacred duty.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The entire set of Crusades were an utter failure except for the final concessions earned for Christian pilgrims traveling to Palestine. It should also be noted that, unsurprisingly, the Crusaders betrayed the Byzantines in the first crusade and even turned on them later and accelerated not just the collapse of the Empire, but handed much of Southeastern Europe to the Muslims.

I suppose I both disagree and agree with this.

For instance, the relationship with the Byzantines was not merely a Latin betrayal, the Byzantine hierarchy was duplicitous and corrupt, there were several coups during the later years of the Empire and they did not give straight deals to the Crusaders either and fucked them over several times (Muslims did not necessarily get along much better with each other either----just FYI)

Should they (Latins and Greeks) have gotten along? Sure, but it wasn't a one way street.

Also, I would not see the Crusades as a failure. Full-Stop.

The Islamic regime in the Levant that the Crusaders had a problem with did not exist as it had after the Crusades, Christians were respected in the Holy Land and and Holy sites were preserved instead of defiled. This accomplishment was sufficient, for it was stories of atrocities against Christians and Holy Sites that provoked the European nobility in the first place.

Indeed, the Crusades are only a failure if you believe the only goal of the Crusades was to establish a Crusader State in Jerusalem and the surrounding regions, but that was neither a stated goal or a primary goal. It was an ancillary or unspoken secondary goal (due reward to those who led the campaign, etc). So losing Jerusalem or not retaking it is not loss for the Crusades as a movement and is not necessarily a failure for the Crusader purpose except perhaps as a tactical loss in a broader conflict.

For instance, I am of the opinion that the Third Crusade was a success. King Richard humiliated Saladin and gained concessions that insulted the entire Islamic world in spite of not retaking Jerusalem.

The Crusades were retaliatory, but they were not ever intended as a full reconquesta like what happened in Spain. They were retaliatory but were very specific in their goals of protecting Christians and Christian sites in the Holy Land at the behest of the Byzantines (keep in mind the Levant and church in Jerusalem was under the See of Constantinople since ancient times). That Crusader states were necessary at the time to keep the holy land secure for Christians does not mean that they were ipso facto necessary to the Crusader cause and purpose (just for clarification).

Lastly, The Crusades helped to forge a western consciousness and identity that allowed it to flourish and sowed the seeds of both the Renaissance and the Reformation and created a fortitude in the west against Islam that would allow for its victories against it, first at Vienna, and later with the defeat and dissecting of the Ottoman corpse.

Hind site is 20/20, but the stated goals of the Crusades were justified and still would be given the results that came after in my opinion. (this latter aspect being the main point of our disagreement).

[Rancid]

Other. Ultimately both were justified.

"Justification" are merely the convenient rationalizations you use to further your person agenda.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The Muslim male chauvinist pigs were amazed at the freedom that "the Franks" allowed their women.

That depends on the Muslims and on the subset of gender-relations we are speaking about.

Islamic divorce laws were far more liberal than the Christians, especially in Malmuk Egypt. Indeed, theologically speaking, it seems divorce even under the stricter interpretations of Sharia is still more liberal than most conservative Christians views of marriage. Remarriage is also more restrictive in Christianity.

[Decky]

Remarriage is also more restrictive in Christianity.

Unless you are a protestant heretic of course (Trump, Henry VIII etc) and then you have as many divorces as you like.

How are you even meant to tell the difference between Prods and atheists?

[Red_Army]

Prods like to handle snakes and go on TV to punch old sick people in between homosexual meth binges.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Unless you are a protestant heretic of course (Trump, Henry VIII etc) and then you have as many divorces as you like.

How are you even meant to tell the difference between Prods and atheists? :?:

Well, since you are yourself an Atheist, you should be able to tell me the difference right?

[Heisenberg]

Papist hypocrites are in the habit of getting spurious annulments as a technical way of getting around the prohibition of divorce that they pretend to hold to (Ted Kennedy's "annulment" after 25 years of marriage to his first wife comes to mind ).

Indeed, that was part of the reason that Henry told Clement VII to shove his three-tiered gold tiara up his arse.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am actually quite surprised that the Pro-Crusade option is ahead right now.

PoFo is Deus Vult?

.....Who Knew.

[SolarCross]

bye bye commies, bye bye femtards and libtards and jihadis. The times they are a changing.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Since I showed up, its seems a lot of leftists have disappeared.....

Did I piss some people off or what @SolarCross ?

This place was a lot more left-leaning when I showed up less than a year ago.

If you look at polling for the last year, its definitely tilts right.

(though the pro-Trump/anti-Trump poll was like a perfect 50/50 split)....

[Pants-of-dog]

If you want to argue for a revisionist history of South Africa, there is another thread for that, but its not the same, because by the time of the Crusades there was still a protracted conflict between the Islamic world and Christendom, this was not the case in South Africa.

Your previous argument was about settlement.

This is a new argument: that the Crusaders were justified (while black SA citizens are not) because of the protracted conflict between Islam and Christianity.

While I agree that this particular religious conflict was not present, there was and is a protracted conflict between the white minority and the black majority.

And thank you for finally answering my question about this. You seem to think that protracted conflicts between larger camps justifies these smaller battles in the larger ongoing war.

Many settler colonialisms were not intentional attempts to displace natives, some were, and sometimes anti-indigenous attitudes developed over time, but many colonialisms were simply attempts to settle unused land which led to conflict with tribes once arrival already occurred leading to conflict and war. If anybody has a legitimate beef with the Boers, its the khoikhoi or hottentots, but since their conflict ended and they interbred with boers, even thats a hard row to hoe.

Are you now changing your argument so that the motives of the settlers is now important?

Either way, we seem to be agreeing that in both cases, there was settlement by the Muslims during the Crusades, and by Europeans in SA.

Please note that the land was not unused or empty in either of the two cases being compared.

It they weren't violently compelled, it was voluntarily done yes. Were they pressured to do so? Sure, but they could have said "Fuck you" to the UN and international sanctions like many countries tend to do all the time.

Well, if it was reluctantly accepted by them, or forced on them, then it is not a peaceful coexistence where everyone agreed that everything was awesome and kumbaya.

Obviously, the conflict between those dispossesed by racist laws and those who profited from racist laws is ongoing. It has simply moved from the battlefield to the courtroom.

And this is why the question about non-military movements to reclaim land was brought up.

The point was that treaty or agreement to co-governance is a de facto burying of the conflicting grievances. Its a duplicitious and slight-of-hand knavery to "Agree to peace" and then use that agreement as means of accomplishing an act of revenge for something that occurred prior to that "agreement of peace." Its the same in South Africa, and this is exactly why the Crusades are different.

Muslims and Christians were in a continuous and protracted conflict, any settlers in this were only part of an on-going mid-conflict occupation, and there was no agreement to peace and co-governance that was instituted between Islam and Christianity prior to A.D. 1090 that was meant to definitively end that time of conflict and war.

They are completely different matters. So you can add false-equivalency to your red-herring.

As I already pointed out, the conflict is ongoing. It has merely shifted from violent conflict in the streets to non-violent conflict in the legislature and the courtroom.

The fact that black people in SA are not simply accepting everything mutely after Apartheid was ended is not germane to whether or not conflict is ongoing.

Now, if you want to say that "land-appropriation" is not about retro-active justice, but about the rights of the state, that is a separate matter altogether and you would be correct, for allowing a government by popular rule allows for this possibility and so as might makes right, the government will do as it wants and the whites have only themselves to blame for ending apartheid, but i already said this on the South Africa thread. That has no relation to the Crusades though.

Sure. Moving on...

I could probably find several if I studied every one specifically, but I haven't and don't have time to right now. I'm sure you would have some in mind that would fit my criteria. Would you not?

I suppose if I could think of any example off the top of my head, I would say a rebellion against King Leopold and the Dutch would be easily defensible. The blacks were forcibly made into chattel slaves by the Dutch by unjustifiable aggression and not by contract, there is not much redeemable about Leopold's operations there in my opinion (unlike the British in many cases). I also think the Tibetans have been wickedly oppressed by China, and other examples could probably be given.

If you have some ones you want to me assess specifically, I will and I will give you my honest opinion Pants.

Can you think of an example that is ongoing and does not involve Marxism?

Why won't you provide one?

Because the question is irrelevant.

If there was an actual war between blacks and whites in South Africa, not settled by any treaties, or any agreement to co-governance, then according to my logic the blacks would be justified in trying to take land from whites as an act of war in a protracted war-conflict.

But that seems to be a stretch to claim.

Especially when treaties were signed between black tribes and whites following conflicts in South African history, and the regime that followed apartheid was a de facto agreement to co-governance between whites and blacks, the whites still had political parties and constitutional rights after apartheid ended, so you can't say it wasn't an agreement to co-governance.

Indeed, would any reasonable person really say that South Africa was never an actual nation or political entity but merely a region of protracted conflict between rival nations (white nations v. black nations)? Is that what you are claiming?

Like I said, that would be a stretch.

All of the countries that were formerly colonies of the British empire are also settings for protracted and ongoing conflicts between indigenous people and settlers.

[Decky]

Where did you get the idea that being pro crusade would be right wing VS? There is nothing left wing about the Mohammedan caliphate.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I. On Your Claim Of An Ongoing World-Wide Race War Between Whites and Blacks.

This is a new argument: that the Crusaders were justified (while black SA citizens are not) because of the protracted conflict between Islam and Christianity.

While I agree that this particular religious conflict was not present, there was and is a protracted conflict between the white minority and the black majority.

And thank you for finally answering my question about this. You seem to think that protracted conflicts between larger camps justifies these smaller battles in the larger ongoing war.

Obviously, the conflict between those dispossesed by racist laws and those who profited from racist laws is ongoing.

This position is problematic for several reasons;

1. it takes my usage of protracted conflict, which is obviously meant to refer to a state of declared war/animosity between two larger groups and attempts to take that definition and say it can equally apply to a civil rights movement or social justice. My context was quite clear and I even referred to the conflict between Islam and Christendom as a world war. Likewise, I differentiated it by its lack of either a treaty formally ending this war/animosity or an agreement to co-governance.

2. Your attempt to twist my definition to force a contradiction in my position is not only based on a red-herring and false-equivalency (both fallacies), but now also on equivocation.

3. Your duplicity:

And this is why the question about non-military movements to reclaim land was brought up.

And I didn't answer that question because I asked you to first define a military, which you openly refused to do because you said it was irrelevant. Apparently it wasn't irrelevant and you were being duplicitous and dishonest.

You KNEW that if you were forced to define "military" you would not be able to include a political struggle within a nation as a protracted conflict in the sense I was clearly using. Which is why you refused to define such when asked. So you simply assumed in your own mind your own terms to create an imaginary contradiction in my position which simply does not exist.

This is some of the most despicable and dishonest debating I have ever seen and this is why people refuse to engage you and have advised me not to do so.

4. The Problem with Your Definition of Conflict.

All of the countries that were formerly colonies of the British empire are also settings for protracted and ongoing conflicts between indigenous people and settlers.

If you insist to expand war/conflict to include social conflicts between white and blacks within a nation or state, not only would it call into question the definition of a nation and state to the point that we would almost have to accept ethno-nationalism by default, but your position would also imply that we are currently in a world-wide race war between blacks and whites.

Besides the fact that this position is crazy-talk, if it were conceded (which it won't because that is not how I defined a protracted conflict), not only would I agree that blacks are justified in taking white lands, but any retaliation by whites and white nations would likewise be justified as further retaliation is an on-going war.

Hence, my position would then be that we are at war with blacks and that we should respond appropriately.......we all know how that would end now don't we?

NOTE: I can see now why SJWs are so crazy, they actually believe we are in a worldwide race war.


II. On The Nature of The Post-Apartheid Regime As Co-Governance.

Well, if it was reluctantly accepted by them, or forced on them, then it is not a peaceful coexistence where everyone agreed that everything was awesome and kumbaya.

Obviously, the conflict between those dispossesed by racist laws and those who profited from racist laws is ongoing. It has simply moved from the battlefield to the courtroom....

The forming of a mutually black-white constitution with equal protections under law and both having representation in a popular government are ample proofs that this is not a WAR. These peoples came together and formed a co-governance (per my definition). Of course there are still disagreements, what government lacks partisan disagreement? Given your definition, are Labor and Conservatives in the UK literally at war? That is preposterous.

The blacks in South Africa lost wars to the whites, fair and square, and joined with them in a popular government as co-governors which is a de facto agreement to do just that; cooperate with each other going forward. Its even stronger in its binding significance than a peace treaty ending formal hostilities.


III. On The Crusades and The Criteria of Justification.

That the Crusades are categorically different is grounded in several points.

1. The protracted conflict between Islam and Christianity was, as I always intended given the context, a hot war or series of hot battles not resolved by treaty or an agreement to co-governance. NONE of which is true about the situation is South Africa.

2. The settlers in South Africa did not settle into an area that they had won during a battle as occupied territory (Like the Muslims and Crusaders did as part of a larger world war). Many colonial settlers were surprised or confused when they found natives in many of the places they settled. Sometimes contact was not immediate and did not occur for some time after they arrived (which is only possible because of unused lands btw). This is manifestly not the case with Arabs settling in places like Jerusalem. That was a movement of population to a place that was recently conquered in a war. Me moving to Japan after hiroshima and nagasaki is infinitely differently than a pilgrim landing at plymouth rock.

But all of that is irrelevant, for even if the European settlement was unjustified trespassing, it resulted in actual war between two extended groups, and he who wins, wins the spoils of war.

The conflict is ended when the enemy is either annihilated, integrated, or they settle by a treaty or an agreement to co-governance.

But thats my point, the Crusades were a justified response in an ongoing protracted conflict or war, as would have been a Bantu raiding party in response to whites burning a village during a war between the two groups.

That is not what is happening is South Africa, to say otherwise is to engage in sophistry and clear derangement.


IV. OTHER

Can you think of an example that is ongoing and does not involve Marxism?

Not off the top of my head, but this area is not my strong suit and I have not researched all of the on-going post-colonial movements currently active in the Third World.

Like I said, if you have an example you would like me to look at with my criteria, I would gladly do so.

Your previous argument was about settlement.

Not it wasn't. You brought that up.

[Code Rood]

Because the Crusades against the Muslims were some of the most righteous, noble and moral acts in human history, where as the Crusades against the Pagans were some of the most disgusting, hypocritical, immoral acts in human history.

Couldn't have said it any better.

[Red_Army]

This question really brings up a more important point. Do we need another crusade? I heartily say yes. I propose one immediately, but as we did the first time we must first clean house. America is filled with snake handling apostates that must be cleansed. "For every prod a pyre," can be our rallying cry!

As Vic's wife said: Deus Vult. All heretics must hang, burn, or at least be bludgeoned to death.