Were The Crusades Justified? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Were The Crusades Justified?

1. Yes, The Crusades Were Justified.
17
35%
2. No, The Crusades Were Not Justified.
16
33%
3. Neither, Both Sides Were Equally Justified or Not-Justified.
9
18%
4. Other.
7
14%
#14943225
Pants-of-dog wrote:So retaliation designed to secure stolen lands and help the people whose lands were stolen is justified.


I am going to leave aside the red-herring you are about to drop (ANC land-appropriation), and only address the point you are making with the nuance it requires.

If someone steals something from you, you are not violating the NAP or Just-War (which are basically the same thing) by retaliating.

However, I do not think the Islamic conquerors were wrong in retaining what they won by war (that is not my point), I think the Islamic conquerors were wrong in their initial act of violent expansion, the retaliation was in response to unjust aggression, not because the principle of victoribus spolia was believed to be inapplicable.

The war between Christendom and Islam began from the days of Muhammad and was, in my opinion, a world war which continued between Christianity and Islam through the Crusades. The Crusades were but a chapter in a larger worldwide conflict.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Does this apply only to military cusades, or does it also apply to non-military ventures with the same goal?


That depends on how you define a military? Is a person on his own property where he and all his family members are all armed, a military?
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 29 Aug 2018 17:03, edited 1 time in total.
#14943230
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I am going to leave aside the red-herring you are about to drop (ANC land-appropriation), and only address the point you are making with the nuance it requires.


According to your argument, it does seem logical for you to support the ANC and ither anti-colonial movements.

If someone steals something from you, you are not violating the NAP or Just-War (which are basically the same thing) by retaliating.

However, I do not think the Islamic conquerors were wrong in retaining what they won by war (that is not my point), I think the Islamic conquerors were wrong in their initial act of violent expansion, the retaliation was in response to unjust aggression, not because the principle of victoribus spolia was believed to be inapplicable.


So, all empires are wrong in their acts of forceful expansion?

The war between Christendom and Islam began from the days of Muhammad and was, in my opinion, a world war which continued between Christianity through the Crusades. The Crusades were but a chapter in a larger worldwide conflict.


How does this impact the justification?

That depends on how you define a military? Is a person on his own property where he and all his family members are all armed, a military?


I am using the commonly accpeted definition.

My question was about non-military movements to reclaim stolen land. Are they also justified?
#14943235
Pants-of-dog wrote:According to your argument, it does seem logical for you to support the ANC and ither anti-colonial movements.


I knew it. You couldn't help yourself, could you?

This is a red-herring and is off-topic on this thread, I will say only a few remarks...

I. It depends, in regards of individual cases of particular theft, of course I believe retaliatory measures are justifiable, but they must be specific and demonstrable.

II. Territory won by war once the conflicted settled, absolutely does not warrant retaliation (this creates an ad-infinitum situation for humans).

III. Retaliation after a peaceful co-governance had already been established between both parties? Most definitely not.

Thus, The crusades are justified unlike the ANC grab because:

1. Islamo-Christian war was on-going, there was no theft per se. It was land changing hands between victors during a protracted conflict.

2. There was no treaty and co-governance established, if there was, then a crusade done as retro-active justice would be unjustifiable (just like ANC land-grabs are unjustified, because thats what they are).

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, all empires are wrong in their acts of forceful expansion?


If engaging in violence against privately retained property and property holders without any justification for doing so, YES.

This is different than my views were when I first joined the forum as an Imperialist. I can't justify large portions of Imperialism now, given the NAP.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How does this impact the justification?


Yes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am using the commonly accpeted definition.


Which is an apparatus of a state alone? I want clarification on this.

Pants-of-dog wrote:My question was about non-military movements to reclaim stolen land. Are they also justified?


Only if its specific and its not done as a retro-active action long after the conflict had been "settled."

This is similar to war, if the war is on-going, reclaiming occupied lands is justified, if the war is over (via a treaty or declaration), then reclaiming land that now belongs to your former-enemy and for-no-other-reason than it was once yours, is likewise unjustified.
#14943236
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I knew it. You couldn't help yourself, could you?

This is a red-herring and is off-topic on this thread, I will say only a few remarks...

I. It depends, in regards of individual cases of particular theft, of course I believe retaliatory measures are justifiable, but they must be specific and demonstrable.

II. Territory won by war once the conflicted settled, absolutely does not warrant retaliation (this creates an ad-infinitum situation for humans).

III. Retaliation after a peaceful co-governance had already been established between both parties? Most definitely not.

Thus, The crusades are justified unlike the ANC grab because:

1. Islamo-Christian war was on-going, there was no theft per se. It was land changing hands between victors during a protracted conflict.

2. There was no treaty and co-governance established, if there was, then a crusade done as retro-active justice would be unjustifiable (just like ANC land-grabs are unjustified, because thats what they are).


Are you claiming that Muslims did not settle in the lands they conquered? This seems incorrect.

Please note that in the case of South Africa, no peaceful co-governance was ever established between both parties.

If engaging in violence against privately retained property and property holders without any justification for doing so, YES.

This is different than my views were when I first joined the forum as an Imperialist. I can't justify large portions of Imperialism now, given the NAP.


So you now support anti-colonial movements?

Yes.

Which is an apparatus of a state alone? I want clarification on this.


Moving on....

Only if its specific and its not done as a retro-active action long after the conflict had been "settled."

This is similar to war, if the war is on-going, reclaiming occupied lands is justified, if the war is over (via a treaty or declaration), then reclaiming land that now belongs to your former-enemy and for-no-other-reason than it was once yours, is likewise unjustified.


What if the conflict itself lasts centuries? Is the movement still justified if they keep up the struggle over centuries?
#14943240
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you claiming that Muslims did not settle in the lands they conquered?


No.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that in the case of South Africa, no peaceful co-governance was ever established between both parties


The ending of Apartheid was exactly that, that was the expectations and assumptions that were made explicit by both sides. If it wasn't, then there would have been no end to apartheid. he Afrikaaners would never have given up power if they believed that implied the loss of their lands.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you now support anti-colonial movements?


I would have to assess them on a case-by-case basis.

Once again, if they are engaged in a protracted conflict of which they are the victims, I would be sympathetic, if there is specific cases of actual theft, I would be sympathetic.

However if they are Marxist, which is an open opposition to both the NAP and property in general, I could not support their cause and be consistent in spite of whatever legitimate grievances they may have. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Moving on....


That is not a clarification.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What if the conflict itself lasts centuries? Is the movement still justified if they keep up the struggle over centuries?


If it is not formally resolved? Yes.
#14943248
B0ycey wrote:Game set and match Pants!


Yes if you call unrelated red-herrings logical, even after I preemptively called him out on it because I knew that is what he was going to say.

Your bias and cognitive dissonance is absolutely astounding. Do you even know how to read?
#14943250
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Yes if you call unrelated red-herrings logical, even after I preemptively called him out on it because I knew that is what he was going to say.

Your bias and cognitive dissonance is absolutely astounding. Do you even know how to read?


I understand hypocrisy. But let the victors enjoy their spoils. As long as there are rules attached apparently. When has war or policy been fair? :lol:
#14943252
B0ycey wrote:I understand hypocrisy. But let the victors enjoy their spoils. As long as there are rules attached apparently. When has war or policy been fair?


What about my explanation was hypocritical, inconsistent, or unreasonable? Please explain.
#14943254
Victoribus Spolia wrote:What about my explanation was hypocritical, inconsistent, or unreasonable? Please explain.


Your words are merely codes of conduct. And opinion at that. War has no rules. It isn't a game of chess. You can't say one form of land grad is OK but another isn't because the rules are different. There are no rules. And your user name should help you out there.
#14943256
B0ycey wrote:Your words are merely codes of conduct. And opinion at that. War has no rules. It isn't a game of chess. You can't say one form of land grad is OK but another isn't because the rules are different. There are no rules. And your user name should help you out there.


Except I argued that in war the spoils do go to the victor. :eh:

I only argued that such is different than a specific act of theft.

It is reasonable for you to demand someone give you back your car if he stole it from you and it would be reasonable for you to take it back by force.

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

That this isn't obvious to leftists is part of the problem. Its border-line retardation.
#14943258
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Except I argued that in war the spoils do go to the victor. :eh:

I only argued that such is different than a specific act of theft.

It is reasonable for you to demand someone give you back your car if he stole it from you and it would be reasonable for you to take it back by force.

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

That this isn't obvious to leftists is part of the problem. Its border-line retardation.


So does SA need to go to war in order to reclaim stolen lands? If so, it will be very one sided. But if that has your approval so be it. :lol:

If you support the rightful heir to land should have their lands returned then you cannot pick and choose when and why this notion should apply without falling foul to hypocrisy.

But I don't kid myself VS. I know full well why you support one action and not the other. Bias.
#14943260
B0ycey wrote:So does SA need to go to war in order to reclaim stolen lands? If so, it will be very one sided. But if that has your approval so be it.


That the current land-theft by the state could lead to war is possible, and if you know anything about SA history, disounting what the Boers are capable of would be a grave error. They are the quintessential underdogs and are of a historic ferocity when provoked.

B0ycey wrote:If you support the rightful heir to land should have their lands returned then you cannot pick and choose when and why this notion should apply without falling foul to hypocrisy.


That is not what I am doing, only a simpleton would see a state taking land from people who've had it for hundreds of years as the same as the crusades which were but a single chapter in a protracted conflict between expanding Islamic caliphates and Christian kingdoms.

Its asinine.

B0ycey wrote:But I don't kid myself VS. I know full well why you support one action and not the other. Bias.


:lol:
#14943263
Victoribus Spolia wrote:That the current land-theft by the state could lead to war is possible, and if you know anything about SA history, disounting what the Boers are capable of would be a grave error. They are the quintessential underdogs and are of a historic ferocity when provoked.


Sure, if you look at the Boer war. But you forget the advantage was that the fight was on their territory. This isn't the solely the case this time. Nonetheless I doubt 200 hundred farmers are going to resist actually. And if they do, they will lose. But if that is what is needed for you to think the ANC's actions are just, so be it.

That is not what I am doing, only a simpleton would see a state taking land from people who've had it for hundreds of years as the same as the crusades which were but a single chapter in a protracted conflict between expanding Islamic caliphates and Christian kingdoms.

Its asinine.


To the victor goes the spoils. But we must play nicely. Whatever. :lol:

Sorry VS, stolen lands are just that. Reclaiming lands are just that. The means of either is irrelevant. You cannot help but fall into hypocrisy if you dictate rules to fit whatever you feel is just at a given time even though the results of both are the same.
#14943265
Victoribus Spolia wrote:It would not be reasonable for you to demand reparations from the French for the Norman invasion under William the Conqueror.

Of course it would. It's the French, for heaven's sake! :eh:

:excited:
#14943268
Victoribus Spolia wrote:No.


If Muslims did settle, then it is the same as the settlers in SA.

The ending of Apartheid was exactly that, that was the expectations and assumptions that were made explicit by both sides. If it wasn't, then there would have been no end to apartheid. he Afrikaaners would never have given up power if they believed that implied the loss of their lands.


I do not think that the white minority willingly gave up power.

As to your point, if the end of Apartheid was the beginning of the co-governance, then the land reclaiming done by the ANC is simply part of the co-governance process.

I would have to assess them on a case-by-case basis.

Once again, if they are engaged in a protracted conflict of which they are the victims, I would be sympathetic, if there is specific cases of actual theft, I would be sympathetic.

However if they are Marxist, which is an open opposition to both the NAP and property in general, I could not support their cause and be consistent in spite of whatever legitimate grievances they may have. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Can you give an example of one that you would support?

That is not a clarification.


You are corrext. It is not.

If it is not formally resolved? Yes.


So,the fact that blacks kept up the fight until Aparthied was over and beyond (until the present, as a matter of fact) justifies land reclaiming in SA. According to your logic.
#14943276
Pants-of-dog wrote:If Muslims did settle, then it is the same as the settlers in SA.


:roll:

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.

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.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think that the white minority willingly gave up power.


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.

Pants-of-dog wrote:then the land reclaiming done by the ANC is simply part of the co-governance process.


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.

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.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you give an example of one that you would support?


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.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are corrext. It is not.


Why won't you provide one?

Pants-of-dog wrote:the fact that blacks kept up the fight until Aparthied was over and beyond (until the present, as a matter of fact) justifies land reclaiming in SA. According to your logic.


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.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19
Atheism is Evil

Essence can also be understood as nature, and w[…]

March 5, Thursday Federals continue digging a […]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

I was not sure if this should be here or in the “U[…]

Election 2020

@Drlee , @Unthinking Majority SHUTUP!!! Marc[…]