Posted on 09/21/2015 2:10:13 PM PDT by conservativejoy
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Neil Cavuto today that Obama is using ISIS arguments against Christians.
"Not only is this president unwilling to go after, to call out radical Islam by its name, but at time President Obama has acted like an apologist for radical Islam… When I said President Obama is an apologist, you may remember earlier when President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and the King of Jordan was scheduled to speak there but he had to fly back to Jordan because the day before ISIS had taken a Jordanian pilot, put him in a cage and lit him on fire.
And President Obama gave a speech, I was sitting at the prayer breakfast, he said, “Yes, ISIS is committing acts of terror, but Christians and Jews had committed acts of terror too.” And, he invoked the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Now, last I checked the Crusades ended nine hundred years ago. I don’t think it’s asking too much to ask this president to stay in the current millennium. And the reason I say he’s being an apologist is because that argument is the exact same argument that the terrorists use. ISIS, when they are beheading Christians, when they are crucifying Christians, they invoke the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Love it! Cruz control.
Well, here’s that video Hoft stole:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1giRVguQQI
What’s wrong with that thief anyway?
Exactly.
Did anyone post Mark Steyn’s column today? It is fantastic.
America is so desensitized to 0dunga's acts of treason that we're all just sitting back watching the world burn and America along with it. And this traitor caused TWO immigration crisis, one in Europe and the other in North America and no one calls him on it.
People had better start coming to terms as to WHY the Crusades happened. It wasn’t crazy Christians just going on a rampage for no particular reason.
Look at the history of the middle east, look how Islam spread as a timeline against the Crusades. We should all be GRATEFUL that the Crusades occurred. If they didn’t we probably wouldn’t exist as we do. Were there some that committed crimes? Sure, but tell me one war where that didn’t happen. People on both sides committed crimes during WWII - does that mean that we’re guilty of something horrible for defeating the Nazi’s??????
Of course not.
oh...and....
Raila Odinga....look at the support he got from Obama. A Muslim Communist POS. Obama directly supported him, he flew into the country to do so - it’s on youtube.
Because they’re allies. They’re on the same side.
While Ted was being interviewed by Cavuto, the news alert came over the wire. Cavuto signals Ted to hold on, and then he says “Scott Walker is dropping out.” Ted says, “Holy Cow.” Then he talked about what a good man Scott is.
Ted has all the class of a President. I so admire him.
I think Odinga is Obama’s cousin. Obama encouraged him to stir up unrest if he lost the election.. There was so much bloodshed when he lost that they finally gave Odinga a co-equal position leading the country.
back to the top
Right On Right On Right ON.
When is Obama going to protect Christians from Muslim atrocities, why hasn’t he done so.
Why are we taking in the perps and not their Christian victims
Tell your Congressman, Save the peace loving Christians of the middle east
0bama is the Supreme Jihadi. The proof is in his words and actions.
Thanks.
+1
Actually, on balance, the Crusades probably harmed the cause of resistance to Islam. (And I mean in the course of military and diplomatic history at the time and in the centuries following, not by their continued propagandistic use by Muslims and Islamophile anti-Christian secularists, though that’s another downside to the enterprise.)
The real bulwark against the advance of Islam from the East was, down until it dwindled to a city-state, the Empire (Roman Empire, but your leave, the notion that it was a different “Byzantine” Empire is an invention of the “Englighenment” historians who had an axe to grind and wanted to deny Romanity to the Christian Romans and claim it for themselves). Even when it was not much more than city-state, there was a brief period in the 14th century when an Ottoman sultan was a vassal of the Emperor, though it was bracketed by periods when the roles were reversed. Everything the First Crusade managed to accomplish in terms of stabilizing the eastern frontier of the Empire and of Christendom as a whole was more than undone by the treachery of the Fourth Crusade — it was that treachery, not the defeat at Manzikert as Western apologists try to claim, that sealed the Empire’s fate, doomed the Balkans to the Muslim yoke, and opened the way for the repeated Muslim attempts on Vienna.
Leaving aside the brief period of Christian control of the Holy Land, it’s not even clear the First Crusade did that much good — the period following it was full of intrigues and little wars which had dissident Muslim Emirs siding with the Emperor against the Caliph and one or another of the Crusader states, Latin-held Antioch besieged by the Emperor, and all manner of other chaos. The Empire and Christendom as a whole might have been better off if a pack of intriguing Western European noblemen had not be deposited in the Middle East and the Empire under the Comneni had just had to deal with the Muslim threat on its own.
As an Antiochian Orthodox Christian, I’m not even sure the Crusaders controlling the Holy Land was on balance a good thing — they forcibly replaced Orthodox bishops who were still in communion with Rome, completing the Great Schism —in 1054, only Constantinple and Rome breached communion, the other Patriarchates were still in communion with both until 1098 when the Crusaders installed a Latin bishop in the occupied see of Jerusalem and spent two years trying to “convert” the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, who had not before then broken communion with the Pope of Rome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.