[prairiebreeze]

The more I read and learn about Pope Benedict the more I like him. Also, it's interesting to review the time spans of the crusades, given at the end of the article. Even though the dates apparently aren't universally agree upon.

[prairiebreeze]

ping

[ccmay]

No apologies for the Crusades, at least to the Islamics. They were justifiable and even noble wars of defense against Muslim aggression and conquest.

The Jewish community is owed a deep and heartfelt apology for the behavior of some of the Crusaders, but that is a whole different story.

-ccm

[peyton randolph]

The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since.

---

And they see Mohammed the Pedophile as a great man. Who cares what the Muslims believe? They're nuts.

[stm]

Agree 100%. So I wonder when there will be burning of Italian flags in muslim countries?

[Irish Rose]

The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence

And we all know how Muslims cannot stand acts of violence.

[tbird5]

It looks like the Catholic church is going after the Muslims. Someone has to.

[ConorMacNessa]

I knew there was a good reason I liked this guy. (Papa Razzi)

[Cicero]

Good. PJPII meant well, but I think he was mistaken in this policy. Pope Benedict was said from the start to be more of a realist on some of these silly ecumenical issues and especially on Islam.

And, by the way, the Inquisition is not as bad as it is often painted, either. In the period when tens of thousands of witches were being burned in northern Europe, the Italian Inquisition basically said that these women were not witches, just crazy. Even the Spanish Inquisition, which was pretty much under the control of the Holy Roman Emperor and/or the King of Spain, was not as bad as it's usually painted. Or, at least, no worse than the justice you got in most of the rest of Europe at that time. Anyone who has visited the dungeons of some the the European castles and chateaux will recognize that they were not pleasant places.

A Google search will turn up some of the latest historical work on the Inquisition. John Tedeschi's work is especially worth looking at.

[cricket]

Hopeless to compare barbarities. . .but we do know the Christians moved foward. . .let us say. . .to a more enlightened world view; whereas the core of Islam. . .and it's adherents. . .have not.

[Dan Middleton]

About time somebody grew a pair about the Crusades, if you'll pardon my language. I just got done reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, and it's excellent, a must-read.

[Torie]

It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant.

[mtbopfuyn]

The Christians moved along with time, the Muslims never did.

[VOA]

There were justifiable reasons for The Crusades.
As detailed in this book:

"Jihad In The West" by Paul Fregosi


Not an easy read, but makes it clear what is down the road for
those who don't fight back and win.
(and not saying The Crusades were executed without some awful mistakes...
just that they were justified after a tsunami of an invasion by
a horde living out an Arabian Bushido code)

[pravknight]

The Fourth Crusade was by far the worst because it was waged against fellow Christians, and it doomed any chance of reunification between the two halves of Christianity.

[Cinnamon Girl]

He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”.

They also sacrificed the lives of thousands of Jews.

[ChessExpert]

"Historians count eight Crusades, although dates are disputed: 1095-1101"

And for how many centuries did the Muslims wage war against Christians and others prior to the first Crusade? Early Christian history was one of evangelizing (talking) and martyrdom (real victimhood). Early Muslim history was one of conquest and murder.

[Uncle Miltie]

The Crusades were a counterattack. Nothing more.

Had the Muslims not invaded Christian countries, no counterattack would have been necessary. The Crusades were the Muslim's fault.

[RightWhale]

Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity

Including parts of France. They went up against Christians who happened to not be Roman. They also sacked Constantinople, which was Christian but not Roman.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Turkey’s Muslim culture is at variance with Europe’s Christian roots."

The Turks were Turkomen impressed and mercenary soldiers who were used by the Muslim heirarchy to invade Anatolia and push out the Greek Christians centered in Constantinople.

It worked, and a bunch of Turkomen from thousands of miles East North East conquered and subjugated Anatolia. Perhaps we should kick their a88es out, and let the Greeks have it back, eh?

[Publius6961]

So much for the asinine approach of "if we're nice to them they will join the 21st century".

Savages, inferior two-legged animals are not moved by the usual passions of civilized humans.

Enough said.
Yes, specially the children!