Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

On another thread, our self appointed historian made the following claim that he has so far been unable to cite a single historian to back his allegation:

shafique wrote:All the Jews in Europe that were killed when the crusaders set off - as acts of penance - they weren't killed for their lands etc, they were slaughtered by European Crusaders as a religious act.

shafique wrote:Did you admit that even in Loon versions of history the first acts of slaughter were of Jews in Europe and were done 'in the name of Christ' as a penance?

Well, actually I am not aware that the 'official version of history' says that some renegade crusaders killed Jews as acts of penance.

So, I guess I'm going to have to deny that Jews were slaughtered as acts of penance and that their killings were not motivated for more earthly reasons, such as money or even food.

So, let me repeat my question to you.

What does the loon version of history say is the reason behind the first acts of slaughter by the Christian crusaders?

I can indeed show that Crusaders slaughtered 'in the name of Christ' and as acts of piety/penance - and the first victims were the Jews of Europe whose only sin was to follow the religion of Moses.

But I'm intrigued to find out what the loon blogs/Bible camps say was the reason for this slaughter by the Crusaders and what they give as their reference for this 'belief'.

Cheers,
Shafique

I can indeed show that Crusaders slaughtered 'in the name of Christ' and as acts of piety/penance - and the first victims were the Jews of Europe whose only sin was to follow the religion of Moses.

Why are you intrigued ?

Why do you need someone to answer your questions before you can answer questions that were asked of you first ?

I stated a fact which can be looked up in history books - and I'm happy to give you these references.

However, I want to know what your loon alternative reality is based on. I suspect it is just wishful thinking on your part.

I've asked you the same question in 3 different threads - and as it relates directly to your claim that the crusades weren't Holy Wars - I'm suspicious about why you won't reply about the motivation behind the first acts of slaughter of the crusades. Is it because they were done in the name of Christ and can't be spun as political acts - and would therefore undermine your whole argument at the first hurdle?

Cheers,
Shafique

Ah, more spam from the master troll.

Let's just conclude you were caught lying .... again.

Ah, first quoting Ibrahim now accusing me of lying.

Young loon - just answer the question and I'll provide you with the references and then you can call me a liar to heart's content. Until then, it appears that you just don't want to put your money where your mouth is and tell us what the loon reasons are for the first acts of slaughter of the crusades.

(Calling me smelly or saying my mother is fat will also not divert attention away from the question you're avoiding)

Cheers,
Shafique

Young loon - just answer the question

Strange obsession you have with making demands on others.

I wonder how short you must be that the only power you wield is on a forum you're a moderator of where the only time someone is interested in what you spew out is when you type out wild claims and others ask you to substantiate your mumblings.

I don't blame you that people are so disinterested in you in real life that you prolong any response that could have been answered days ago by refusing to reply to the most simplest of questions - instead, turning what would be a quick exchange with anyone else into a rather grueling event.

The references are waiting for you to answer the question about what YOUR loon version of history is and what it is based on.

I mean, if I am going to be just countering fantasies dreamt up by the likes of Mr Ibrahim or your friend Guru Bob, and not actual historical documents or historians - then I can adjust my responses accordingly.

So, what is the loon explanation for the reasons behind the first slaughters of the crusades - the Chrisitan knights slaughtering the European Jews?

Cheers,
Shafique

The references are waiting for you to answer the question about what YOUR loon version of history is and what it is based on.

Why would it matter ?

Why can't you simply answer a question that was asked to you before you asked your question ?

Man, what a weirdo.

Because you are the one who says that the Crusades weren't a Holy War and so let's establish what the Loon version of history gives as the reason for the first slaughter of the crusades and establish whether you're just a rogue loon for believing the crusades weren't a holy war or whether you are basing this on actual historical documents.

What is the reason behind the Christian Crusaders' slaughter of Jews in Europe according to your loon history, and what are you basing this on?

Cheers,
Shafique

Because you are the one who says that the Crusades weren't a Holy War and so let's establish what the Loon version of history gives as the reason for the first slaughter of the crusades and establish whether you're just a rogue loon for believing the crusades weren't a holy war or whether you are basing this on actual historical documents.

LoL.

What ?

Why do you need to establish anything ?

Just answer the question - which historians claim the crusaders killed Jews in Europe as acts of penance.

Jeez, and people are not totally convinced that you're a loon.

You could have just said you don't know or plead the 5th (knowing that the answer will incriminate you).

What is it with loons and their fantasies? You're not going to start a new thread and start quoting Guru Bob instead of answering the question are you??

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:Ah, more spam from the master troll.

Man what a riot. Man have you not realised by now that your THE troll here.

Ask yourself this. Why are you here ? This is a Dubai based forum has nothing to do with you. Yet you spend so much time and energy here from your spiteful miserable exsitance here. Why ?

No one wants to listen to your crap, we've all heard it and a million times over. So who's the troll ?

I think you've graduated to super troll status as a normal troll's live span is around two to three months

You could have just said you don't know or plead the 5th (knowing that the answer will incriminate you).

I did say I didn't know.

Check out the OP where I said this and another post in this thread where I quoted that part of the OP saying I didn't know.

LoL.

Epic failure in reading comprehension.

Now, who are these historians who claim that the crusaders killed Jews in Europe as an act of penance - you claim this is the consensus amongst historians, so it shouldn't be difficult to quote contemporary, mainstream Crusader historians.

Given that you don't know - I suggest you do some homework and report back what the loon version of history is on this point.

If Guru Bob sets you straight and tells you that you are being a silly boy - and sets you straight that the first slaughter of crusades was indeed done in the name of Christ as part of a Holy War by the Christian Crusaders (and not a political act), then you don't have an argument any more.

I really can't help you with this homework question - I wasn't at the loon Bible camp where you seem to have picked up this notion that the Crusades weren't a Holy War. Or perhaps you just dreamt it? Or perhaps Ibrahim told you this in a vision?

You see, I can back up my statements with historical references - I suggest you do your homework before you challenge others on historical facts.

Let us know what Guru Bob tells you about why the Christian Crusaders slaughtered European Jews - whether Loon history says it was religously motivated or not. If he says they were politically motivated, then ask him where he got this notion from - then we can compare references.

Until then, my suspicion is that you've gone 'rogue loon' and are speaking out of your posterior - I mean why would you be evading the same question in 3 different threads?

Cheers,
Shafique

Deja vu all over. Opening a thread with a question (a normal one IMO) and another poster is not contributing anything but inserts only personal attacks

Hey I hate to get in the middle of these two love birds but someshit is just too funny to be ignored !

P.S : Rogue Loon....now that was funny.

P.P.S : FD don't get so wriled up about your troll buddy ratty.

Ah - but isn't it sweet to see some solidarity and support for the young one - he was getting a bit hot under the collar there.

The longer the young 'un refuses to answer the question posted 3 (or is 4 now?) threads ago (in the 9/11 thread), the more I suspect it is just a rogue Loon theory on the loose!

And what happens to rogue loon theories? ...




But, kidding apart - I am seriously interested in hearing about the notion that the 'first Holocaust' was not religiously motivated. Perhaps I have indeed missed a historic reference somewhere. Perhaps eh is busy looking up references?

Cheers,
Shafique

Constantly trying to ridicule others and playing the personal card is for the weak, insecure and the small people, who have no arguments.

I truely wonder why poster shafique feld the urge to be a part of this thread. Obviously he has a poblem with a question that is not answered to his satisfaction in another thread. Take it in thread and try to contribute to the question why jews were killed by the crusaders with some adult arguments.

This from the guy who posted (a funny one, it has to be said ) poster of 'Chubby Checker' doing the Twist!

But, as I said before, enough with the smoke and mirror defence - let's hear what the Loon version of history is and whether Guru Bob or any other loon agrees with eh's version of events that the Crusades weren't holy wars after all.

My money is increasingly on the 'rogue loon' angle.



cheers,
Shafique

I have to admit, I'm running out of ways to re-state this simple issue - but I'll still try - but essentially it will be the same points raised early on in this thread:

shafique wrote:I stated a fact which can be looked up in history books - and I'm happy to give you these references.

However, I want to know what your loon alternative reality is based on. I suspect it is just wishful thinking on your part.

I've asked you the same question in 3 different threads - and as it relates directly to your claim that the crusades weren't Holy Wars - I'm suspicious about why you won't reply about the motivation behind the first acts of slaughter of the crusades. Is it because they were done in the name of Christ and can't be spun as political acts - and would therefore undermine your whole argument at the first hurdle?

shafique wrote:This from the guy who posted (a funny one, it has to be said ) poster of 'Chubby Checker' doing the Twist!

You are confusing me with somebody else I assume.

-- Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:22 pm --

shafique wrote:I have to admit, I'm running out of ways to re-state this simple issue

Because you are doing it in the wrong thread

^if it wasn't you who posted the poster - then I apologise for my memory lapse, and take back that point.

Now, given that my memory is indeed fallible and that I've conceded that perhaps there is a rogue reference out there that says the first slaugther of the first crusades was NOT done as part of a Holy War/Religous grounds/Penance - it would indeed be good to finally see this elusive referenence.

Either that, or eh is blowing smoke...

Cheers,
Shafique

Event horizon states he doesn't know. How is that blowing smoke?? I also donot know. He asks for references to support your statements shown in the OP. I admit I donot know much about the Crusades, I haven't read any historians about it. It find the question interesting though.

Wiki (I know...) states:

Physical violence against Jews was never part of the church hierarchy's official policy for crusading, and the Christian bishops, especially the Archbishop of Cologne, did their best to protect the Jews, as they were theologically required to do.

Lets start from there...

If there is anything about the Crusades in general whether they are a holy war or not, I suggest posting it in:

http://www.dubaiforums.com/dubai-politics-talk/pope-urban-and-obl-one-religious-the-other-political-t42648.html

The issue is that eh made the interesting point that he believes the Crusades weren't primarily a Holy War. He maintains they were political and not religiously motivated - i.e. not a Holy War where killing is justified by religion.

He is basing this on some reading of history (or he gives the impression he is basing it on some document/opinion or other).

Any source which says that the First Crusade was not a Holy War, will also cover the first slaughters of those crusades.

Ergo, I'm asking what those sources say about the reasons for this 'first holocaust'.

Heck, at this stage I'll even be glad to get a source reference. As stated above, my suspicion is that eh's view of the holocaust comes from a blog somewhere or a 'man down the pub said'.. I mean, why make a historical claim (Crusades not Holy War) and not name the sources?

I mean, even wiki would be a start (he'd just have to show where Wiki says are the reasons why the Jews were slaughtered and show that it wasn't because of the religous views of the Crusaders doing the slaughtering)

Cheers,
Shafique

He maintains they were political and not religiously motivated - i.e. not a Holy War where killing is justified by religion.

Yes, absolutely. The causes for the crusade were indeed 'political', ie. earthly.

The crusaders were organized to end Muslim occupation of Christian lands and also to curb attacks against Christian lands.

But FD is absolutely correct. That is for another thread. This thread is for you to provide evidence that the killing of Jews by some rogue elements was done as acts of penance.

shafique wrote:I mean, why make a historical claim (Crusades not Holy War) and not name the sources?

Oh no. Another epic failure in reading comprehension.

Was my thread seeking to compare and contrast the Pope's call to arms with OBL's fatwa not obvious enough that my source was the Pope's own reasons for going to war ?

shafique wrote:I mean, even wiki would be a start (he'd just have to show where Wiki says are the reasons why the Jews were slaughtered and show that it wasn't because of the religous views of the Crusaders doing the slaughtering)

I'll be happy to do that on another thread.

But this thread is simply asking for references that the Jews were killed as acts of penance.

Why the reluctance to give us your sources for which you based your belief that the Crusades weren't holy wars?

We can then examine them and see what they say concerning the first acts of slaughter by Crusaders were - and test out your theory that they were political and not religiously motivated.

I'll happily give you my references once we've established I'm not arguing against something you just dreamt up.

Cheers,
Shafique

Why the reluctance to give us your sources for which you based your belief that the Crusades weren't holy wars?

I already told you, snowball, my source is the Pope's call to arms. There's nothing in his speeches more 'religious' than OBL's fatwa.

In fact, the Pope never cites religious texts as a justification for waging war.

So, that makes the Pope's reasons for going to war less religious than OBL's.

Liar wrote:I'll happily give you my references once we've established I'm not arguing against something you just dreamt up.

Translation: I was caught up in a lie and now I'll pout and demand that others answer my questions so I'm not exposed as a liar.

FYI, if you're asked to provide a citation for a claim, then you provide the citation or just admit you were lying.

Funny how you were asked a question first but want others to answer your questions (when they've already been answered).

What a prima donna.

Again with the strange interpretations.

Why not give us the references for the speech you allegedly read and believe shows the Crusades weren't holy wars. I'll happily give you my references in exchange.

You increasingly appear to be speaking from an even more remote part of fantasy loon-ville than you usually inhabit. Are you on a vacation in this new exotic place that is so divorced from reality?


Cheers,
Shafique

Why not give us the references for the speech you allegedly read and believe shows the Crusades weren't holy wars.

You're a bit slow to the draw.

I've already offered this on the other thread.

'll happily give you my references in exchange.

Hey, if you offer a logical explanation why you can't answer a question you were first asked, then maybe I'll consider that.

For the time being, I'll simply assume you were caught up in another lie and are trolling your way out of being exposed.