Civil war is raging in Iraq right now

[Fr3$h]

Except the Crusades were not against a bunch religious nut jobs blowing up every thing they could.

... Yes they were. If they had explosives anyway. It was more burning stuff back then.

My point was not that religious fanatics weren't involved (they were), but rather than religious fanatics alone lacked the monetary power to actually carry out their desires and were instead used by "financial fanatics".

I would avoid western historians when it comes to the crusades (well, I avoid western historians in general). They have to adhere to a radical PC agenda and extreme censorship, so their version is that one day Europe (evil) just went ballistic for no apparent reason and decided to invade some peaceful beautiful foreign scientists. Of course that's not how it went. Even the middle eastern account of the crusades is more neutral than this. The Islamists of the day were rather similar to now.

[Drunken Cat]

Also I often see people compare Iraq to "the Crusades" as a way of illustrating that they were religious/holy wars. Even the crusades were not fought primarily for religious reasons. Religion was merely used as a rallying cry to raise morale after a financial or territorial need was determined.

In the case of the crusades you had a similar act of "terrorism" as the trigger (******s attacking civilian Christian pilgrims and merchants) and Europe's wealthier institutions had been looking for a way to relocate its constant civil war overseas to displace the collateral damage. As a bonus they would secure the trade routes that were endangered by the medieval equivalent of "Islamists" (much like today's Islamists oppose economic globalism and chose the WTC as a symbolic target).

While the nobility likely cared very little about hate crimes against Europeans/Christians (just like upper class Americans today could care a less if American cities are unsafe for European-Americans as long as their replacements are more efficient workers), they gladly took the opportunity to use religion to paint factions the average joe could comprehend, convert them into manpower and use them to snuff out rogue economic powers (even if those rogue economic powers were not necessarily affiliated with those who carried out the ********* attacks).

When the Christian soldiers entered Jerusalem, they killed every man, woman and child within the gates. It's said the horses got bogged down in the blood.

Your entire post sounds like something you just made up.

I'd be curious to know your sources.

[Fr3$h]

I don't understand what you mean. When did I say the Christians weren't also violent? In my first post I discussed how much of the "objective" of the crusades was displacing domestic slaughter to foreign soil.

However in the western version ONLY the Christians were violent fanatics and their opposition was made up of peaceful intellectuals. This was a response to:

Except the Crusades were not against a bunch religious nut jobs blowing up every thing they could.

[Drunken Cat]

I don't understand what you mean. When did I say the Christians weren't also violent? In my first post I discussed how much of the "objective" of the crusades was displacing domestic slaughter to foreign soil.

However in the western version ONLY the Christians were violent fanatics and their opposition was made up of peaceful intellectuals. This was a response to:

And your sources from which you construed those narratives?

[Fr3$h]

And your sources from which you construed those narratives?

Obviously you'll need to be more specific, state your conflicting view, etc. I cannot "source" you the entire history of the crusades when I do not know which part you are interested in

Are you dis*****g that that non-religious factors motivated the mobilization of forces, that it was a two-sided conflict, or dis*****g my allegation that it is fashionable in western society to portray the crusaders as somehow more 'zealous' than their adversaries (the latter being the most difficult to cite since you could easily pretend to find those sources neutral, as foreshadowed by your random mention of the siege of Jerusalem, an arbitrary focal point)?

[Drunken Cat]

Obviously you'll need to be more specific, state your conflicting view, etc. I cannot "source" you the entire history of the crusades when I do not know which part you are interested in

Are you dis*****g that that non-religious factors motivated the mobilization of forces, that it was a two-sided conflict, or dis*****g my allegation that it is fashionable in western society to portray the crusaders as somehow more 'zealous' than their adversaries (the latter being the most difficult to cite since you could easily pretend to find those sources neutral, as foreshadowed by your random mention of the siege of Jerusalem, an arbitrary focal point)?

You presented an entire narrative which I think sounds like you made the entire thing up.

Your inability to provide any sourcing seems to confirm my su****ion.

[Fr3$h]

Ah so you're just trying to be annoying/evasive. And there I was willing to give you a serious conversation. I should know better.

[Drunken Cat]

Ah so you're just trying to be annoying/evasive. And there I was willing to give you a serious conversation. I should know better.

I'm not being evasive at all.

I'm wondering where it is you read this entire history.

I'm certainly no expert on this topic, but I know enough to be able to recognize potential bull**** when I see it.

That you can't list a couple sources merely speaks about you.

[Mr Ehrmantraut]

This is what happens when you don't let the Brits run the World.

[Sweet Pea 50]

This is what happens when you don't let the Brits run the World.

Would you adopt me if that were to ever happen again?

Every limey could use a Fat Yank in their life.