The Crusades with Bill & Rollo

[jasonc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
we are in part along with him, responsible for that problem.

 

[jasonc]

I do take the cold war era of and that we had to get involved, still im uneasy about that stuff.

 

[th1b.taylor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_Treaty_(1930)

the fact is Iraq wasn't a nation as it is known today, we must be aware that brittian is to blame for Afghanistan(church fought there) Iraq and iran were under the uk empire. I don't hold all that to him but its in part his problem. its never a simple thing with them.

But this, in no manner ties Mr Churchill into this mess. If your link is 100% acurate, I'm doubtful, all of this does not tie Mr. Churchill to the mess. Any, reasonably, aware human know England is tied into the mess but not Winston. He was not the nations leader before the war and in typical pacifist stupidity, he was removed so the nation could fall back into the hole he drug them out of. And in truth, this is a rabbit trail, having nothing to do with the Crusades.

 

[jasonc]

But thi, in no manner ties Mr Churchill into this mess. Any, reasonably, aware human know England is tied into the mess but not Winston. He was not the nations leader before the war and in typical pacifist stupidity, he was removed so the nation could fall back into the hole he drug them out of. And in truth, this is a rabbit trail, having nothing to do with the Crusades.

he was in charge as a prime minister. he along with us took out the Iranian leadership for oil. that is mentioned.
I even quoted it. I can also post where he said something not so nice about jews. communists and they are always doing that. hmm and he would be correct since the bolesheveks were JEWS!

a pm not the king of England has power. I figured you knew that
whom wrote the treaty?!

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was to write that the 1930 treaty provided that the British could maintain air bases near Basra and Habbaniya "in times of peace" and have the right of transit for military forces and supplies "at all times." In addition, Churchill indicated that the treaty would provide "all possible facilities" including the use of railways, rivers, ports, and airways for the passage of armed forces "during times of war."[3]

 

[th1b.taylor]

he was in charge as a prime minister. he along with us took out the Iranian leadership for oil. that is mentioned.
I even quoted it. I can also post where he said something not so nice about jews. communists and they are always doing that. hmm and he would be correct since the bolesheveks were JEWS!

a pm not the king of England has power. I figured you knew that

This might make a good OP in the Current Events but it has nothing to do with this subject, please.

 

[jasonc]

This might make a good OP in the Current Events but it has nothing to do with this subject, please.

crusades are very much similar. if one is going justify why we should do that then its related. the fact that isreal and the Holy Land was a contention over nothing but greed and the bible was used to justify that action. we have allied with muslims against the ussr. imagine that. its why we place people we liked(Hussein) the shah, the others that are pro us for our own interests.if I must die, in war, I will want to be at peace with the cause that I fight. If I don't like the cause. then I will retire and protest said war. some wars we have involved ourselves with have no reason no rhyme.

 

[th1b.taylor]

crusades are very much similar. if one is going justify why we should do that then its related. the fact that isreal and the Holy Land was a contention over nothing but greed and the bible was used to justify that action. we have allied with muslims against the ussr. imagine that. its why we place people we liked(Hussein) the shah, the others that are pro us for our own interests.if I must die, in war, I will want to be at peace with the cause that I fight. If I don't like the cause. then I will retire and protest said war. some wars we have involved ourselves with have no reason no rhyme.

Jason,
I try not to be rude but before Rollo and I began this discussion we thought out what we wanted to discuss and that was the reasons for the Crusades and I, in my second post gave a link to some of the material that defined the discussion. We wanted to hash over the how and the why they were performed and, honestly, anything after 191o or so has no bearing on the subject matter. this will be my last response to material other than the Crusades. Rollo might feel differently but i don't even care about why the Muslims reacted as they did.

 

[jasonc]

Jason,
I try not to be rude but before Rollo and I began this discussion we thought out what we wanted to discuss and that was the reasons for the Crusades and I, in my second post gave a link to some of the material that defined the discussion. We wanted to hash over the how and the why they were performed and, honestly, anything after 191o or so has no bearing on the subject matter. this will be my last response to material other than the Crusades. Rollo might feel differently but i don't even care about why the Muslims reacted as they did.

the reasons for the crusades had nothing to do with the bible. one could argue that it was in response to the muslims but If I recall the pope and the muslim ruler tolerated each other and traded with each other. but suddenly that changed. the moors influenced the Spanish architecture and when ever I look at the old Spanish style built in florida and we have tons(not built by the Spaniards they used not stucco but clay, shell and brick) I see that influence. the moors did and were a problem not doubt about that.

 

[th1b.taylor]

the reasons for the crusades had nothing to do with the bible. one could argue that it was in response to the muslims but If I recall the pope and the muslim ruler tolerated each other and traded with each other. but suddenly that changed. the moors influenced the Spanish architecture and when ever I look at the old Spanish style built in florida and we have tons(not built by the Spaniards they used not stucco but clay, shell and brick) I see that influence. the moors did and were a problem not doubt about that.

The Arab influence is everywhere but that didn't cause the Crusades, I don't find that connection.

 

[Mike S]

If Islam had not be pressuring Christianity for three hundred years with military conquest and forced submission, there would have been no Crusades. The Crusades were caused directly by Islamic militancy, and was most immediately a response to Islamic attacks against the Byzantine Empire in the east.

 

[th1b.taylor]

If Islam had not be pressuring Christianity for three hundred years with military conquest and forced submission, there would have been no Crusades. The Crusades were caused directly by Islamic militancy, and was most immediately a response to Islamic attacks against the Byzantine Empire in the east.

I do, so, agree. Europe has been suffering the lingering effects of those actions to this day. The recent Gag Rag Murders are a get extension of the Crusade's cause.

Great post brother.

 

[jasonc]

The Arab influence is everywhere but that didn't cause the Crusades, I don't find that connection.

the Spanish Iberian peninsula was held by the muslims up to the time of Columbus. I can easily post images of my towns old motels and homes and find some mosques and you can see the similiarities.

 

[jasonc]

oh im not saying nor disagreeing with that the muslims were innocent. just that lets learn from that sad chapter.

 

[th1b.taylor]

the Spanish Iberian peninsula was held by the muslims up to the time of Columbus. I can easily post images of my towns old motels and homes and find some mosques and you can see the similiarities.

I'm not doubtful of the influence, it is seen everywhere.

 

[jasonc]

I'm not doubtful of the influence, it is seen everywhere.

not all Spanish structures have that, just the catholic churches that are old enough and or influenced by that. some are also not influenced at all by that. I wouldn't call the Spanish forts at Castillo de st. marcos and ponce influenced by muslims.

 

[Michael74]

Christendom was being invaded, but the various factions could not unite long enough to put up an effective defense. A few disorganized crusaders sallied forth, but were too divided to accomplish much. It was not until the invasion reached Vienna that the various groups realized that they would be next, and finally united to repel further invasion. A combined multi nation army turned back the invasion at the gates of Vienna, and no further significant advances into Western Europe took place.

After that, a centuries long alliance between the Magyars and Austrians was able to hold the line near the Balkans. Spain launched a counter attack, and retook the Iberian peninsula. Then the Europeans went back to squabbling with each other, and the counter attack was over. The invasion turned in other directions, having given up on conquering Western Europe.

 

[jasonc]

Christendom was being invaded, but the various factions could not unite long enough to put up an effective defense. A few disorganized crusaders sallied forth, but were too divided to accomplish much. It was not until the invasion reached Vienna that the various groups realized that they would be next, and finally united to repel further invasion. A combined multi nation army turned back the invasion at the gates of Vienna, and no further significant advances into Western Europe took place.

After that, a centuries long alliance between the Magyars and Austrians was able to hold the line near the Balkans. Spain launched a counter attack, and retook the Iberian peninsula. Then the Europeans went back to squabbling with each other, and the counter attack was over. The invasion turned east and north, having given up on conquering Western Europe.

the Iberian area known is castile, what is now Portugal and the provences near that to include Madrid were held by the moors, as the Spanish called them.

 

[Michael74]

Yes, the Moors conquered the Visigoth kingdom in Spain. The Franks turned them back at the battle of Tours, so they never took France.

 

[jasonc]

Yes, the Moors conquered the Visigoth kingdom in Spain.

Portugal was separated from spain before that time of the invasion. remember that Columbus was Italian whom sailed for spain after asking the portugese who then regretted that mistake. the events of 1492 isn't that far from the repulsion of the moors fully from spain. and why I see the Moorish style influence here so much in the older style buildings. ponce de leon was with Columbus first two voyages then set sail to florida to look for the old fountain of youth. man florida is really that old and yet young as a settled state. less then one hundreds ago most of my state wasn't settled that much.

 

[Michael74]

The Moors invaded Iberia in 711. The conquistadors ejected the last vestiges of Moorish rule in 1492, at the battle of Granada. Then the conquistadors went on to conquer South America. They never pursued the Moors very far into Africa. Here is a map of early conquest, illustrating the Moorish invasion:

http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/419/429222/thumbs/ch10_177.html

Portugal was settled by the Germanic tribes Suebi and Vandals, along with their allies the Sarmatians and Alans. Spain was settled and ruled by the Germanic tribe of Visigoth. The Visigoths conquered their fellow Germanic tribes in Portugal, and ruled the entire Iberian peninsula at the time of the Moorish invasion. The Suebi and Vandals regained their independence after the Moors were ejected from Portugal.