Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Isis - thoughts?
Thanks for flushing out this point. To clarify:
The Christian Crusades were a military RESPONSE to the Muslim Crusades (also military), which had overtaken swaths of lands and persecuted and killed people in all of the Middle East, northern Africa, Spain, Italy, southern France, and the Greece area, Cyprus, and other lands further east as well.
Were the Christian Crusades aggressive? Yes. Unequivocally. Can we say that the Christian Crusades were acts of Christian Aggression? Well, that depends on how you choose to see it. There's a distinction here. It seems like splitting hairs, but I think it's relevant...
By it's definition war is aggressive. So yes, both the Christian and Muslim Crusades were war and therefore aggressive. To go back to my WWII example, if you'll permit me...
If Nazis were still in power today, I wager a guess that they would perceive the Allied crusade against their Nazi extremism as aggressive and therefore as acts of Democratic (I don't mean the political party, but rather the ideology, just to clarify for some of the readers here) Aggression. But, remember, that Allied actions like at D-Day were IN RESPONSE to an already present real and real time threat.
You need to see that people can look at aspects of war and say that they were atrocious, but that the overall objective was good and needed.
The Southerners called the American Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. Was the Union Army aggressive? Yes. But in response to what? Evil - slavery. The Civil War was primarily (yes, other reasons too) fought to rid this land of a form of bondage and evil.
I can look at the slaying of innocent Muslim people in Jerusalem at the hands of my Christian brothers of centuries ago and say they (the Christian Crusaders in that locale) did an evil act. This is the same as being able to look at radical Muslims today and saying they are doing evil acts, but still maintain that other non-violent Muslims are not doing evil acts. I take issue with the former group, not the latter.
And I can say this and still maintain that the overall objective to aggressively push out and back the Muslim Crusaders was a good thing. We have to keep in mind that the Muslim Crusaders were having a war of Muslim Aggression FIRST. The Christian Crusades were a military response to this. Just like the Allied Forces in WWII. Just like the Union Army in the American Civil War.
So, yes the evil actions of my Christian brothers in faith mar history, for this is all they are seen as - horrible killers of innocents. I don't deny this - that they were off track here in Jerusalem or wherever else they slayed innocent Muslims. But the Crusading Christian soldiers who fought the true enemy - the male, not innocent, Muslim Crusaders who had already taken over and shed innocent blood...no I don't see these Christian Crusaders as being overly aggressive or errant in their actions. They had to stop a spreading violence from pushing further into other lands. It's the same as the Allied forces stopping Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. Is the same at the U.S. and our allies stopping ISIS.
Thanks for responding. I appreciate your thoughts. You are correct, I did not cite my source and that was an honest mistake on my part. You can accept my apology or not - your choice.
I did not ever claim that the American Thinker was an unbiased source, just so we're clear.
You have pointed out that it is a biased source. Thanks for pointing that out and I don't really have an answer to that. Any person who writes on history looks at it through a lens. Their lens is informed by his/her own worldview.
I chose this source, though, because it quoted the Quran and also a Muslim apologist. The Quran being a 1st hand source, well it doesn't get any better than a 1st hand source, so there's no arguing there. And an apologist, a person who writes and speaks in defense of a religion or idea, is also a 1st hand source - so again no argument. I liked this particular compilation of information. It also used cited data from points and other writers in history.
I see that you dislike the heading of the organization that put out this article. But, you ought to evaluate the article's content separate from its writing organization. We cannot just throw out writings because we dislike the source or the source's social or political perspective.
I admit while I'm not a Democrat, I can read points from this point of view and still accept that the writer, while holding a viewpoint with which I disagree, has made a logical, cogent thought.
Sorry. I'm not following your thought here. Can you give me an example? Or an example from what I wrote? I'm not sure where I stated that a whole religion ought to end.
I did say that evil-doers like ISIS ought to end.
We can crusade for whatever we want. The word "crusade" is not limited in its meaning to a religious campaign. That's fact. Not cute.
To quote you from above, how was I "obviously calling for some sort of violent religious crusade?" Where did I write that? Please cite where I said that. You are making things up.
I am stating that the U.S. and allies need to fight ISIS and crusade (not religious crusade) together AKA band together AKA work together AKA strive together.
I've also refrained from foul and demeaning language in this discussion. Your words don't hurt my feelings or intimidate me if that's what you're aiming for by calling me names. Its okay if you disagree with me, or don't like my sources, or that I forgot to cite some stuff before, but come on.
Yeah it's a tough spot to be. It quickly falls into a "Well, he hit me so I hit him back." It's very childish.
But we aren't talking about kids. Or playing nice on the playground or getting along with people at work or in our family.
In the cases of WWII and here with ISIS we're talking about the safety and peace of the entire world and the sustainability of developing and developed economies. ISIS, just like, Nazism, is a displacing and destabilizing force.
Do you really think we do nothing? Is that how you really feel about ISIS?
When diplomacy fails, when reasoning with a group who refuses to reason goes out the window, and all your left with is a violent gang, well-armed and well-funded, who bombs, beheads, crucifies, rapes, sells women, steals, and other wises displaces, don't you think it's okay to stand up to the bully? You see this as being, to quote you, "a dick?"
I agree that two wrongs don't make a right. I agree about giving folks the benefit of the doubt. But, that's rational thinking. ISIS does not think rational thoughts outside of their worldview.
I need to ask you this - what would ISIS have to do to cause you to be a "dick" then? How long would you wait? How many people would have to die?
Yeah I did. I have a busy house today with 3 LOs and a husband away traveling for four days. So it was an honest mistake. If you were to go back into TN history and read my posts from months or years prior, you would see that I do make an honest effort to cite.
If this is all you want to do - ridicule me for making a mistake then I'd say that's pretty sad. I'm sorry this upsets you so much - but move on!
Look. You're rewriting history. Since you're so fond of bringing up WWII, your history of the Crusades is like saying the Holocaust never happened. Or that the Jews antagonized Hitler and deserved what befell them. (Yes, I've actually heard people use those arguments. Usually white supremacists. Do you really want to be on that side?) Your whole idea of how this mess started is completely and utterly wrong. This isn't an opinion. It's not an interpretation of history. It is fact that you are wrong.
Also, I'm appalled that someone took your word for what happened in history.
Good for you?
Again I ask, I'm quoted my PP...
"think we do nothing? Is that how you really feel about ISIS?
When diplomacy fails, when reasoning with a group who refuses to reason goes out the window, and all your left with is a violent gang, well-armed and well-funded, who bombs, beheads, crucifies, rapes, sells women, steals, and other wises displaces, don't you think it's okay to stand up to the bully? You see this as being, to quote you, "a dick?"
I agree that two wrongs don't make a right. I agree about giving folks the benefit of the doubt. But, that's rational thinking. ISIS does not think rational thoughts outside of their worldview.
I need to ask you this - what would ISIS have to do to cause you to be a "dick" then? How long would you wait? How many people would have to die?"
I don't have the tactical answers. Why do you think I should have that? Evil is evil. It's spreading and killing. I do know that we cannot have that happen - its' too dangerous. But to advocate a hands-off approach will only cause the groups we're discussing to move and entrench further.
What gap? As recent as 5, 10, 15, 20 years prior to Pope Urban getting the letter from the Byzantine Emperor asking for help, which was in 1095, the Muslim Crusaders were moving and taking over lands ACTIVELY. In 1090-1091 Muslim Crusaders occupied what is now modern day Spain and Portugal. In 1076 they took Ghana. See a portion of the timeline I provided in my PP, below (the whole thing reveals decades of persistent pushing and warring of the Muslim Crusaders). This is a very active group and they had been for all the centuries leading up to the Christian involvement in the Crusades. There was no gap! The Pope got involved to meet and address an active and progressing threat.
"1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia.
1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana.
1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies.
1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca.
1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands.
1094 Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970.
1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099"
I am the 99%.
Do you know how Islam became established in Africa? Hint, it wasn't a "Crusade" it was Muslims escaping persecution in the Middle East fleeing to the Horn of Africa and the local population adopting the religion due to trade, intermarriage etc. How were Moroccans, Malians and others in NW Africa converted to Islam? Trade and missionaries. Not people in military gear (see again Crusades and Spanish Conquistadors). You'd be better off here just blaming it all on Catholics at this point, as I'm sure you'd be comfortable doing!
And spare me the "I can't believe you don't think ISIS is a problem" pablum. I know that in a more personal way than you can likely imagine.
You know how we do
You know how we do
If evil is spreading - you agree with this, yes? No? . And ISIS does not listen to diplomacy or reason, which is happening with ISIS, then we (a collective "we" nations of the world) have 2 choices.
1. Do nothing violent because diplomacy and reason need more time or a better chance...we just haven't gotten through to ISIS yet. Eventually they will see we're right and listen to us about how they need to stop beheading kids. This is akin to letting evil spread.
2. Act. Stop evil with force.
Those are our two choices the way I see it. Do you have another proposal? Are you okay with leaving the stage set as it is? Do you like knowing kids are being beheaded? Or, do you think it's the moral duty of the world's people to come in and serve justice.
I get tolerance - when rational thought is present. ISIS is not a rational group - they are fundamentalists - you should know this from any news reading. We cannot be tolerant of evil. Good people with humanitarian, military and financial resources, standing aside while people are dying, is wrong.
Honestly, there's 2 fronts here on this discussion board.
1. How we perceive ISIS and then deal with it.
2. Whether or not there was a Muslim Crusade that was in existence prior to the Christian Crusade so popularly known.
To #1, I frankly find it chilling the refusal to label ISIS as evil on here and I highly question your compassion for others. If you don't label them as evil, then what, they are good? If you don't think it can be a cut and dry issue (evil or good), since when did childrens' beheadings not become a cut and dry issue? THAT'S alarming. Beheading kids isn't good. So you're saying that's a grey area? Really?
To #2 if someone can prove to me that there was a multi-century gap between the end of the Muslim Crusades and the beginning of the Christian ones, then I will concede that argument as whomever proves this will definitely show that the Christian Crusades were unprovoked.
I'm going on the record, though, that the Muslims were warring and killing "infidels" from as early as Muhammad, after his death, and openly over the multiple centuries until 1095 when Pope Urban went to war with them thus starting what is known today at the Christian Crusades.
I find this timeline here very helpful as it has color-coded all the Muslim victories in GREEN. Green victories from 633 THROUGH 1091 when Cordova Spain was captured by the Muslim Crusaders. Where's the gap lending you all to think the Christian Crusades were unprovoked Christian wars of aggression? My source: atheismabout.com
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_crusades01.htm
I posted a portion of what's below in response to another poster's response ot me. But since you have been politely discussing with me I wanted to respond to your point here speficially too. Please see below...
I suppose the question then is, whether or not there was a Muslim Crusade that was in existence prior to the Christian Crusade so popularly known.
If someone can prove to me that there was a multi-century gap between the end of the Muslim Crusades and the beginning of the Christian ones, then I will concede that argument as whomever proves this will definitely show that the Christian Crusades were unprovoked.
I'm going on the record, though, that the Muslims were warring and killing "infidels" from as early as Muhammad, after his death, and openly over the multiple centuries until 1095 when Pope Urban went to war with them thus starting what is known today at the Christian Crusades.
I find this timeline here very helpful as it has color-coded all the Muslim victories in GREEN. Green victories from 633 THROUGH 1091 when Cordova Spain was captured by the Muslim Crusaders. Where's the gap lending you all to think the Christian Crusades were unprovoked Christian wars of aggression? My source: atheismabout.com
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_crusades01.htm
Again, I state that the Christian Crusades were a military response to a growing Muslim threat of violence that was spreading across lands.
Yeah. I made this photo up. Two words ought to pop out "dominate freedom." Are you willing to give up your rights as women? If not, why aren't you understanding that these men are ALREADY TAKING rights of women elsewhere and have been for centuries.
Thanks, but this doesn't answer my questions of the PPs. Do you have an answer other than these signs? I asked some legit questions - life or death ones. Yet you flippantly provided this. Thoughtful.
Do you have so short a memory that you don't remember how well that went for Iraq? Fighting non-state actors (that is, groups of alliance who operate extrajudicially and cross international borders with little respect or regard for them) is a HUGE can of worms that cannot be taken lightly. It's still invading a sovereign nation, regardless of ISIS hiding in it. "We have to act!" is in this case xenophobic but also illegal.
I posted a portion of what's below in response to another poster's response ot me. But since you have been politely discussing with me I wanted to respond to your point here speficially too. Please see below...
I suppose the question then is, whether or not there was a Muslim Crusade that was in existence prior to the Christian Crusade so popularly known.
If someone can prove to me that there was a multi-century gap between the end of the Muslim Crusades and the beginning of the Christian ones, then I will concede that argument as whomever proves this will definitely show that the Christian Crusades were unprovoked.
I'm going on the record, though, that the Muslims were warring and killing "infidels" from as early as Muhammad, after his death, and openly over the multiple centuries until 1095 when Pope Urban went to war with them thus starting what is known today at the Christian Crusades.
I find this timeline here very helpful as it has color-coded all the Muslim victories in GREEN. Green victories from 633 THROUGH 1091 when Cordova Spain was captured by the Muslim Crusaders. Where's the gap lending you all to think the Christian Crusades were unprovoked Christian wars of aggression? My source: atheismabout.com
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_crusades01.htm
Again, I state that the Christian Crusades were a military response to a growing Muslim threat of violence that was spreading across lands.
Yeah. I made this photo up. Two words ought to pop out "dominate freedom." Are you willing to give up your rights as women? If not, why aren't you understanding that these men are ALREADY TAKING rights of women elsewhere and have been for centuries.
Don't let the Muslims take your rights, women.Let the Christian right take them.