Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Following the exchange on the other thread, shafique made it pretty clear that he believed the Pope's call to arms against the Turks was religious whereas OBL's 'call to arms' against the US, her allies and world Jewry was completely political:

shafique wrote:RC - Pope Urban II call for the crusades was pretty explicit to me - and Bin Laden stating that 9/11 was retaliation for US attacks is pretty explicit too.

I think Pope Urban's misuse of Christianity is indeed against the teachings of Jesus, but he did call for a Holy War against the Muslims - the very charge that is levelled against Bin Laden.)

Anyway, I'm glad you now agree that Bin Ladens justification for attacking the US is political

I've read what the Pope is alleged to have said and I've read what OBL (or his ghostwriter) says in his now infamous declaration of war against the US and Jews.

I can't say, after reading OBL's writings, that I find his rants to be anymore 'political' than the pope's.

Actually, the Pope is probably more secular minded than OBL. Which is an interesting observation - Christians, even as far back as the late 11th century, were more secular than Muslims are today (Just don't tell Noam Chomsky).

Anyways, I'm certainly hard pressed to find something in the Pope's call for war against Turkish belligerence that I couldn't also find from OBL's declaration of war against the US.

In fact, I would say that OBL's declaration is more religiously grounded. His fatwa, not the Pope's, refers to the texts and teachings of Islam as the motivation for his 'Jihad'.

Certainly the Pope never goes that far and, while the Pope quotes a few passages from the NT, they never talk of warfare or could really imply any sort of militancy - one passages talks of Christians as being the salt of the earth and I believe another passage speaks of hardships that Christians must go through.

On the other hand, Bin Laden is quick to quote the Koran where it talks of beheading non-Muslims and waging warfare against infidels until Islam is dominant.

But hey, my mind could change.

I ask what does the Pope say that makes his call to arms religious that I could not find in OBL's fatwa against the US and world Jewry ?

If there is nothing that the Pope says that sets his calls for warfare uniquely apart from Bin Laden's, then perhaps this is another case where Christianity and Christians are held to higher standards than Muslims and Islam.

Just sayin.

Here's answers I prepared earlier

shafique wrote:Were the killings of the Jews in Europe 'political' and not religious acts of Christian penance in the loon version of history?

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?

If so, then given Urban says 'Christ Commands it' - how can you reconcile this with your contention that this was NOT a Holy War? (Killing of the Jews of Europe serves no military/political goal - or does it?)

Are you ashamed of the fact that even the loon version of history shows the Crusaders killing Jews as acts of Christian piety?

So, what does the Loon version of history say the reason for the First Crusaders killing Jews in Europe before setting off was? Did the Christian knights not do it 'in the name of Christ' in your version of history?

The facts though are - Urban did indeed quote the Bible in Clermont, did call for a Holy Army, did say 'Christ Commands it' and the Crusaders did go out and kill European Jews 'in the name of Christ' as the first act of slaughter. The fact that Urban didn't quote the violent verses of the Bible begs the question - what if he had done - would the slaughters have been worse? (Hard to imagine how you could make the slaughters worse than they were).

Bottom line, Crusades were a Holy War - and despite your squirming - you're ultimately All Mouth, No Trousers.

As for Bin Laden - it appears the loon reality distortion field is in operation again. Let me quote to you what is in the first post of the other thread (again):

..These findings are consistent with Bin Laden's own articulations, who has repeatedly stated in online statements, video broadcasts and media interviews with journalists from all religious backgrounds that his war against the West is driven by what he perceives as the West's aggression, violence and injustice against Muslim lands - Chechnya, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc.

The use of religious rhetoric by Bin Laden and others who share his ideology does not change the fact that their underlying motivation is political, not religious.


When pressed by al-Jazeera journalist Taysir al-Alluni on how he could justify the attacks of 9/11 despite Prophet Muhammad's prohibitions against killing civilians, Bin Laden ceased to invoke religious evidence and instead, invoked a politics of reciprocity based on his own logic and ideology. He stated, "It wasn't a children's school! Neither was it a residence...We treat others like they treat us. Those who kill our women and our innocent, we will kill their women and innocent, until they stop doing so" (Lawrence, Bruce. Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden. Trans. James Howarth. London: Verso, 2005, 119).

But the question remains - how does the young loon justify the first acts of slaughter by the Christian knights - the slaughter of European Jews, 'in the name of Christ'??

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:So, what does the Loon version of history say the reason for the First Crusaders killing Jews in Europe before setting off was? Did the Christian knights not do it 'in the name of Christ' in your version of history?

I'm still waiting for your 'historians' to show me that the Christians who did kill Jews did it as acts of penance.

...but do it on another thread. This thread is about the Pope's speech.

shafique wrote:Urban did indeed quote the Bible in Clermont

Ok, is this an argument that the Pope's call to war against the Turks was religious ?

I have to wonder if you've already forgotten that Bin Laden not only quoted the Koran, but he quoted the Koran to provide justification for the killing of non-Muslims.

did call for a Holy Army

Ok, let me know if you're using this as evidence in your argument that the Pope's speech was wholly religious - not political.

did say 'Christ Commands it'

Ditto - see above.

the Crusaders did go out and kill European Jews 'in the name of Christ' as the first act of slaughter.

Let's first see evidence that the Crusaders did kill European Jews in the name of Christ.

Secondly, let's see where the Pope mentions the killing of Jews in his call to arms against the Turks.

The fact that Urban didn't quote the violent verses of the Bible begs the question - what if he had done

Interesting, however, that he didn't. Whereas Bin Laden did. One uses their holy book to justify slaughter. Another simply quotes from it, as one today might quote a price of literature.

Bottom line, Crusades were a Holy War

Let's first see the evidence that the Pope's call to war was wholly religious.

Then we can discuss the actual Crusades at a later time.

So far, no evidence has been provided to show the Pope's declaration of war in support of Constantinople was wholly religious - it was political - the Pope cited secular grievances as the reason for the Crusade.

Wow, you could have just said you're not going to answer the question - and I told you, asking me to do your homework (looking up what historians said about the First Crusades) will only get the same response the last few times you asked me to do your homework.

You're the one that maintains that the crusades weren't a Holy War - so, why are you ashamed to tell us what the loon version of history gives as the reason for the slaying of European Jews by Christian knights as the first acts of the First Crusades?

Are you ashamed or is it that you just don't know the answer?

Cheers,
Shafique

You claim to stand by your statement that the Pope's declaration of war was religiously based and OBL's wasn't, but do not attempt to actually defend your original claim.

Hmmmmm.

shafique wrote:and I told you, asking me to do your homework (looking up what historians said about the First Crusades)

Well, it was your claim that historians view the killings of Jews in Europe as an act of penance.

I thought it very reasonable for you to substantiate such a wild allegation.

After all, I don't know which historians you believe you have read (if any at all).

Yes, I still stand by my claim that Pope Urban's call for the First Crusade was obviously a call to Holy War and contrast that with Bin Laden's political motivations.

I notice that you are still avoiding the question about what the loon version of history gives as the motives for the slaughter of Jews in Europe by the Christian Knights as the first acts of slaughter of the First Crusades. Asking me to do your homework for you is futile - I didn't go to the loon Bible camps you attended.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, I still stand by my claim that Pope Urban's call for the First Crusade was obviously a call to Holy War and contrast that with Bin Laden's political motivations.

Interesting logic.

Pope calls for holy war - Crusades are therefore religious

Bin Laden calls for holy war - 9/11 and other al-Qaeda terror attacks are entirely political

Care to explain that logic by any chance ?

I notice that you are still avoiding the question about what the loon version of history gives as the motives for the slaughter of Jews in Europe by the Christian Knights as the first acts of slaughter of the First Crusades.

That's a fallacious argument.

I have not seen evidence that the Crusaders killed Jews as acts of penance. I suspect that you made the claim up - just as you did with your statement that laymen were prohibited from reading the Bible at the time of the first Crusade.

Secondly, the individual acts of Crusaders doesn't 'prove' that the Crusades themselves were religious, rather than political. In reality, the Crusades were very political. For starters, scripture was not cited by the Pope to compel Christians into carrying out acts of violence or joining the war effort and worldly reasons were given for the actual launching of the Crusades, such as Turkish attacks against the Byzantines.

Asking me to do your homework for you is futile - I didn't go to the loon Bible camps you attended.

How is asking you to support a claim *you* made doing my homework ?

Aren't authors expected to cite their sources in their books or is it the reader's task to find the source for the author's claims, O wise one ?

I asked you for what loon versions of history gave for the reason that the Crusaders of the first crusade slaughtered the Jews as the first acts of slaughter of the First Crusade.

I can't help you with the answer - as I didn't attend the Bible camps you did.

Let's review what you're avoiding:

shafique wrote:So, what does the Loon version of history say the reason for the First Crusaders killing Jews in Europe before setting off was? Did the Christian knights not do it 'in the name of Christ' in your version of history?

The facts though are - Urban did indeed quote the Bible in Clermont, did call for a Holy Army, did say 'Christ Commands it' and the Crusaders did go out and kill European Jews 'in the name of Christ' as the first act of slaughter. The fact that Urban didn't quote the violent verses of the Bible begs the question - what if he had done - would the slaughters have been worse? (Hard to imagine how you could make the slaughters worse than they were).

Bottom line, Crusades were a Holy War - and despite your squirming - you're ultimately All Mouth, No Trousers.

Urban called for a Holy War, the Knights killed Jews as the first acts of slaughter in this Holy War.

What was the political aspect of the slaughter of Jews 'in the name of Christ'?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I asked you for what loon versions of history gave for the reason that the Crusaders of the first crusade slaughtered the Jews as the first acts of slaughter of the First Crusade.

And I've asked you to support your claim with actual quotes from historians after you claimed that 'historians' say the Crusaders killed Jews in Europe as acts of penance.

I guess the first things loons always do is to try and re-write history.

shafique wrote:Urban called for a Holy War

Is this some more of your loon logic ?

I already asked you to explain why the Pope's calling for a holy war makes the crusades religious but OBL's calling for a holy war makes his Jihad political.

You seem unable or unwilling to grasp what has repeatedly been asked of you.

Instead, you are merely repeating yourself.

I must say, I would be pretty embarrassed right now. But I would remember that non-Muslims are held to higher standards than Muslims.

the Knights killed Jews as the first acts of slaughter in this Holy War.

Let me know what that 'proves' about the crusades. Did the Church call for their killing ? Encourage it ? Was there something in the Pope's call to arms that must have confused these renegade crusaders ?

What was the political aspect of the slaughter of Jews 'in the name of Christ'?

LoL.

Show me that the killing of Jews by some crusaders was directly connected to the call of a crusade to aid the Byzantines against the Turks.

You find what historians call 'the first Holocaust' funny?

Strange boy.

Are you ashamed to answer the question about what Loon's say the reason that the Christian Knights of the First Crusade slaughtered European Jews was?

BTW - I do indeed still stand by my statements that the Killings of Jews, Muslims and Christians (villages of Middle Eastern Christians were slaughtered by the crusaders) were done 'in the name of Christ' and as acts of pennance. I do indeed have historical evidence and quotes from historians to back this up. However, I am asking you what the loon version of history is regarding the reason for the slaughters of European Jews - the first victims of the First Crusade.

I'm just not going to fall into your 'smoke and mirrors' trap and allow you to divert attention from your claim that the Crusades weren't a Holy War.

So - what is the loon version of history on this point? Why were the first victims of the First Holocaust slaughtered in Europe?

Cheers,
Shafique

Are you ashamed to answer the question about what Loon's say the reason that the Christian Knights of the First Crusade slaughtered European Jews was?

I'm asking you to quote these historians you claim say Jews were killed as acts of penance.

You made the claim, you should support it.

BTW - I do indeed still stand by my statements that the Killings of Jews, Muslims and Christians (villages of Middle Eastern Christians were slaughtered by the crusaders) were done 'in the name of Christ' and as acts of pennance. I do indeed have historical evidence and quotes from historians to back this up.

Good, let's see the quotes where historians say the killings were carried out by acts of penance.

It took a few days to come back to this. So maybe there is someone on google who does indeed makes this claim.

However, I am asking you what the loon version of history is regarding the reason for the slaughters of European Jews - the first victims of the First Crusade.

Still with the strawman.

I see that you can't convincingly argue the Pope's call to arms was religious (hint - this is your claim that is being challenged), so you are now blabbering about something else.

You wouldn't care to answer my question how the acts of renegade Crusaders, whose actions were not endorsed by the Church, proves that the original call for a war against the Turks was religious, by any chance ?

I'm just not going to fall into your 'smoke and mirrors' trap and allow you to divert attention from your claim that the Crusades weren't a Holy War.

Great - I wouldn't want you to fall for my 'smoke and mirrors' either. After all, I have only asked a half dozen times and started this thread trying to find a statement from the Pope that 'proves' his call to arms was religious.

So far, you have only said the Pope called for a holy war.

But, so did OBL and Shahzad, the Times Square bomber. So, logically, the Pope's call for a holy does not lend support that his call to arms was religious - if you want to remain consistent.

Otherwise, we have a statement from you that the Pope's call to arms was religious but you can't be bothered to support your claim.

Big surprise.

Hey, name calling and labelling won't change the fact I'll keep asking you for the loon version of history to back up YOUR claim that the First Crusade wasn't a Holy War. Look back at my first post in this thread. You can't say that you don't know what I'm asking and why I'm asking it.

I'm quite happy to back up my claim - I'm just amused that you're avoiding answering the simple question about what you believe (from Loon classes you attended) the reason for the 'first Holocaust' was - as you keep saying the First Crusade was political and not religious.

If you are right, you will be able to show what the political motivation for the first acts of Slaughter of the Crusaders were (of the European Jews). You're quite right - I have indeed said that these killings were done in the name of Christ and as penitent acts. I do indeed have references which I can give, but these may be moot if even the loon version of history agree with historical facts.

When we have your Loon version - if it is different from what historians and the historical record says, then I can give you the evidence of why the loon version is wrong. So far you haven't given ANY evidence that loon version of history is different. (Again, re-read my first reply above.)

The question remains, what does the Loon version of history give as the reason? Why run away from this?

Cheers,
Shafique

Let's take things one at a time.

You first made the claim that the Crusade was religious based on the Pope's call to arms against the Turks.

You only brought up the killings of Jews in Europe after you were challenged to support your belief that the Pope's declaration of war was religious - you couldn't argue this point with me since OBL's fatwa against world Jewry and the United States was already posted and for every statement made by the Pope that you felt proved his call to war was religious, I easily counter this by quoting Bin Laden's fatwa.

In other words, you were flip-flopping on your position as soon as it was shown that Bin Laden made the same types of statements that you had previously argued had 'proven' the Pope's call to war was religiously based. It was rather easy to see through, so I can understand your reluctance to engage the challenge of this thread.

So now you are going off topic (hint - this thread is simply here to compare the Pope's call to arms with OBL's fatwa) by referencing unsupported and highly dubious claims regarding certain actions of some crusaders - though not all or even a majority of Crusaders and certainly actions without any official support.

If you care to drag on your unsupported (made up) allegation regarding the slaughter of European Jews by a minority of Crusaders, you can do so on another thread.

But this thread is here to compare Bin Laden's fatwa with the Pope's call to arms against the Turks.

Yes, Pope Uban launched a Holy War when he started the First Crusade. History books are pretty clear on this point - that it was a Holy War. (And if you read my previous post, you'll see that I do indeed have evidence to back this up... but I'm waiting for your version of history to back up your counter claim)

You stated that the First Crusade was not a Holy War - but I suspect you are just playing with words here. That would explain why you're squirming and avoiding the simple direct question which would test your bizare allegation that the Crusade wasn't a Holy War.

What does the loon version of history give as the reason for the first slaughter of the first crusade - the slaughter of European Jews by Christian Knights and other crusaders? Were these not done 'in the name of Christ' in loon history?

You see, I can indeed provide references etc to back up my claims. What is enlightening is that you have made a bizare allegation/belief and yet refuse to show how the first acts of slaughter of the Crusades fit in with your belief.

The first acts of slaughter in the Crusades is very much on topic when discussing the Crusades - so just wishing they didn't happen or trying to shift attention away from them fools absolutely no one.

Urban called for a Holy War, Christian Knights went out and slaughtered European Jews in the name of Christ. Explain how this was not a Holy War then in the loon version of history.

Or could it be that this time, Loon version of history is no different from mainstream history? Is this the source of your evasion?

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, Pope Uban launched a Holy War when he started the First Crusade.

So is this your evidence that the call to arms by the Pope was religious ???

but I suspect you are just playing with words here. That would explain why you're squirming and avoiding the simple direct question which would test your bizare allegation that the Crusade wasn't a Holy War.

In this thread, I'm trying to determine what the Pope said that made the launching of the Crusade 'explicitly' religious, as you have claimed by comparing the pope's own statements to OBL's fatwa against world Jewry, the United States and her allies.

So far, you seem pretty stuck on mentioning holy war. Perhaps you keep forgetting that holy war against the US is mentioned by OBL and Shahzad.

the slaughter of European Jews by Christian Knights and other crusaders? Were these not done 'in the name of Christ' in loon history?

Let's first see evidence that they were done as an act of penance. Still need more time on Google ???

You see, I can indeed provide references etc to back up my claims.

Ok, you do that.

What is enlightening is that you have made a bizare allegation/belief and yet refuse to show how the first acts of slaughter of the Crusades fit in with your belief.

That's simple. I see no connection to the mass killings and the Pope's clear message of waging defensive war against the Turks to free his Christian brothers to the East to the actions of a minority of fighting men traveling through parts of Europe.

Not the least of which because the Church condemned these actions, actively sought to combat these crusaders and nothing the Pope said could be seen to encourage such actions.

Now do you wish to stay on topic or will I need to keep reminding you to quote these 'historians' whom you say argue that the killings of Jews by a minority of crusaders was an act of penance ???

Nice attempt at evasion.

I'm not asking you about what YOU think about the 'first holocaust' - I mean you have all sorts of weird ideas/beliefs - I asked what the loon version of history gave as the reason for the Christian Crusaders' slaughtering of European Jews as the first slaughters of the First Crusade?

We can then check your assertions against these historical accounts - I'm not yet convinced that even Loon historians disagree that the slaughter of European Jews in the name of Christ were done in the name of religion.

Are you ashamed to tell us the reasons for the slaughter of the Jews, or do you just want to avoid the fact that even Loon history shows these to be acts done in the name of religion?

Cheers,
Shafique

Nice attempt at evasion.

How am I evading ?

Read the OP and thread title if you are under the wrong impression over the topic of this thread - it's about a comparison between the Pope's call to arms vs OBL's.

One you claimed was religious, the other political.

We can then check your assertions against these historical accounts - I'm not yet convinced that even Loon historians disagree that the slaughter of European Jews in the name of Christ were done in the name of religion.

Revising history is fun.

Unfortunately when it's done on forums, I can simply quote what was previously said. I casted doubt over your (unsourced) claim that a minority of crusaders killed Jews in Europe as acts of penance.

Let's see these quotes.

If you had read my previous posts, you will see that I do indeed stand by my previous statements and have said I can and will provide references to back up all claims.

However, you're still evading the relevant point about what loon history gives as the reason for the first acts of slaughter of the first crusaders - i.e. the so-called 'first holocaust' where the Christian crusaders slaughtered European Jews.

You maintain that the Crusades weren't a Holy War, but seem ashamed/coy/ignorant of what the reason given in the loon history for the first acts of slaughter of this Crusade was.

You have thus far only stated a 'belief' of yours that it was not a Holy War - I just want to make sure that you are not just asking me to tackle a belief you dreamt up and that is not actually in any historical reference. Perhaps you only got the belief from a loon Bible camp or a loon blog (quite likely), and therefore it could turn out to be just like the fictitious Imam you guys dreamt up or other works of fiction.

Why not give us the loon reasons for the first acts of slaughter of the first crusade?

Are you ashamed, or don't you know how to answer?

Cheers,
Shafique

Uh-oh. What happened to the loon's claim that the Pope's speech was 'explicitly' religious ?

Once you're challenged on your loon beliefs, your habit is to turn tail.

No worries, I'll just keep reminding you of what the topic of this thread actually is, rather than what you imagine it to be after you've been trounced on quite heavily in recent days.

What part of the Pope's speech 'proves' the crusaders were explicitly religious ?

How many times do I have to say I stand by what I wrote and can indeed provide evidence to back it up. Nothing's happened to any of my claims - especially the main one that Pope Urban explicitly called for a Holy War - and therefore to back it up, I will indeed be quoting words of Pope Urban. (I'll even quote the earliest historical records we have from historians)

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating - you're maintaining that it wasn't a Holy War, but rather political.

You seem to be falling flat on your face at the first hurdle though - if you are right, then the first slaughters of the crusade must not be religiously motivated. But you seem unable to back up this 'belief' of yours.

The question that you're constantly evading is what reason loon blogs/history books/ bible camps give for the first acts of slaughter of the Christian crusaders - the slaughter of the European Jews. Were these acts not carried out 'in the name of Christ' in the loon version of history?

Cheers,
Shafique

What part of the Pope's speech 'proves' the crusaders were explicitly religious ?

Should be a simple question to answer.

I agree - it is exceedingly easy from the historical record to show that Pope Urban called for a Holy War.

Now, the question becomes what to do the loons say the reasons were for the first acts of slaughter of the Christian Crusaders (that of European Jews) was? Was it political or done 'in the name of Christ'?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:How many times do I have to say I stand by what I wrote and can indeed provide evidence to back it up. Nothing's happened to any of my claims - especially the main one that Pope Urban explicitly called for a Holy War - and therefore to back it up, I will indeed be quoting words of Pope Urban. (I'll even quote the earliest historical records we have from historians)

Great, that's what this thread is actually about.

You can now spam the other thread with your boring posts.

I'm simply looking for a comparison of the Pope's call to arms and OBL's fatwa against the US.

You say that the Pope's declaration of war was 'religiously' motivated because he called for a holy war.

Then, by the same token, OBL and Muslim terrorist, Shahzad, are both religiously motivated because they too have called for holy wars and cited passages from the Koran dealing with Jihad (holy war) against non-Muslims.

Sure thing.

As I said, once we have your version of history about why the Crusaders slaughtered the Jews of Europe, we can then indeed compare that against what the Historical record actually says.

I wonder if it is possible to avoid the same question in 3 different threads!

Cheers,
Shafique

Does anyone need more proof this guy is a loon ?

Seriously ?

LoL.

In another thread shafique asks for a wiki reference about the reasons for the first Crusade:

The First Crusade was part of the Christian response to the Islamic conquests

Ahh, the loon selective quote makes another appearance. Does wiki agree with eh that the Crusades were not Holy Wars?

But, just for the record, what I said was:

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)

Disapointed, but not surprised that reality and spin aren't friends in loonville.

Anyway, enough of the smoke and mirrors - will we ever find out from eh what his sources are for his view that the First Crusade wasn't a holy war and what that source says the reason for the first slaughter of Jews was?

I predict we'll get more 'mommy, please tell the big baaaad Muslim to stop asking awkward questions I don't want to answer'...

Cheers,
Shafique

Can't argue with those excellent debating skills.

More smoke and mirrors?

Actually, I'm itching to see the references for eh's 'beliefs' - my references and quotes are ready and waiting. The only question will be which historian and historical docs to quote first to counter the loon version of events (if we are ever given them).

Happy to engage in a debate - just provide the sources for your alternative theories of what happened in history when you present them. Not much to ask.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Anyway, enough of the smoke and mirrors - will we ever find out from eh what his sources are for his view that the First Crusade wasn't a holy war

Sorry, I'm trying to understand your 'logic' here.

Are you claiming that the Pope's call to arms was 'explicitly' religious because he drops reference to 'holy war' ?

Funny that you should bring this type of argument up - especially since you brush this point aside when I point out that the Times Square bomber and OBL have both called for holy wars against non-Muslims and they both cite the texts and teachings of Islam as their motivation/justification of terrorism.

Really, I expected you to wear jackboots, not flip-flops.