Who were the bad guys in the crusades?

The christians or the muslims?

discuss

Muslims (This probably should have been a poll)

>christians build up crusaders and go to invade muslim lands
>its 2015 and people still asking whos fault was it
>its 2015 and still there are people blaming muslims

लिखा द्वारा AlBoZzZ, 17.10.2015 at 20:45

>christians build up crusaders and go to invade muslim lands

>Muslims invade Christian Europe repeatedly
>Pope asks Christian armies to check muslim aggression by liberating holy land and other areas
>people still think the Christians were the bad guys
you're albanian, your peoples history consists of helping the muslim invaders fight against Christian Europe, your opinion on this matter is clearly biased and irrelevant

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 17.10.2015 at 20:52

लिखा द्वारा AlBoZzZ, 17.10.2015 at 20:45

>christians build up crusaders and go to invade muslim lands

>Muslims invade Christian Europe repeatedly
>Pope asks Christian armies to check muslim aggression by liberating holy land and other areas
>people still think the Christians were the bad guys
you're albanian, your peoples history consists of helping the muslim invaders fight against Christian Europe, your opinion on this matter is clearly biased and irrelevant

honestly if you ever read the real history, muslims didnt go pass turkey during that period of time of crusaders. We even had french crusader pass through albania to go and free "imaginary christian lands" in middle east, so how can you say albanians helped muslims during europe invasion? you make no sense.

I cant debate with someone who is total ignorant . You go by your relations with a religion or country, i go by the real history here

लिखा द्वारा AlBoZzZ, 17.10.2015 at 21:07

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 17.10.2015 at 20:52

लिखा द्वारा AlBoZzZ, 17.10.2015 at 20:45

honestly if you ever read the real history, muslims didnt go pass turkey during that period of time of crusaders. We even had french crusader pass through albania to go and free "imaginary christian lands" in middle east, so how can you say albanians helped muslims during europe invasion? you make no sense.

Muslims didn't go past Turkey? Muslims had conquered Spain at that time, they had been as far north as Tours before Martel kicked their asses back south, they had already conquered most of the Byzantine Empire, the next step for them was to flood into the balkans, as you and I both know actually happened, and please do tell how the lands are "imaginary christian" when they were the birthplace of the religion, and where almost all holy sites are located.
On the Albanians helping kebabs, heres just one example, Kara Mustafa Pasha, Albanian general who led the kebab march on, and siege of Vienna, the one who got his ass handed to him by the Poles and Germans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Mustafa_Pasha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Catholic Christians. The crusades were totally not needed , they just made the two religions hate eachother even more.
They even sacked Constantinopole in 1204 and looted it (at the time Byzantium was othodox Christian) , and you are saying Muslims were worse and had no morals ?!?!

Europe was evil of course. They invaded Arabia and Holy Land under pretext of religion and God, but they only killed and loot. They were so evil and greedy that they even invaded country they said they will protect - Byzantia (1204).

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 18.10.2015 at 10:00

Europe was evil of course. They invaded Arabia and Holy Land under pretext of religion and God, but they only killed and loot. They were so evil and greedy that they even invaded country they said they will protect - Byzantia (1204).

they are like tito....

लिखा द्वारा Ghostface, 18.10.2015 at 08:31

The crusades were totally not needed

yea they totally weren't needed, they were only trying to stop the muslim advance into Europe, and you know they never got far into Europe anyway, it's not like they laid siege to Vienna several times

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 18.10.2015 at 11:52

लिखा द्वारा Ghostface, 18.10.2015 at 08:31

The crusades were totally not needed

yea they totally weren't needed, they were only trying to stop the muslim advance into Europe, and you know they never got far into Europe anyway, it's not like they laid siege to Vienna several times

Youre talking about siege of vinna which happend during ottoman empire and then you mix it up with crusaders who happened years before ottoman empire existed. Thats why i always ignore ignorants like you who talk based on what fits him better instead of real facts. No matter how much you tell an ignorant that 2+2=4 he will always say 2+2=5

लिखा द्वारा AlBoZzZ, 18.10.2015 at 12:03

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 18.10.2015 at 11:52

लिखा द्वारा Ghostface, 18.10.2015 at 08:31

The crusades were totally not needed

yea they totally weren't needed, they were only trying to stop the muslim advance into Europe, and you know they never got far into Europe anyway, it's not like they laid siege to Vienna several times

Youre talking about siege of vinna which happend during ottoman empire and then you mix it up with crusaders who happened years before ottoman empire existed. Thats why i always ignore ignorants like you who talk based on what fits him better instead of real facts. No matter how much you tell an ignorant that 2+2=4 he will always say 2+2=5

>calls me ignorant
>ignores that the Ottoman Empire evolved from the caliphate crusades were fighting
It's sad that even in 2015 Albanians still lick the boots of their muslim rulers
Besides, the crusades weren't about fighting a nation, they were about fighting Islam, and the Ottoman Empire was certainly islamic

लिखा द्वारा For Antioch, 18.10.2015 at 04:25

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 17.10.2015 at 21:39

Good times right?

crusades (against Muslims, not Orthodox or Germanic Pagans).

It's impressive what Poles and Germans are capable of accomplishing when they work together isn't it?
The second part sounds like a good idea for another post

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 18.10.2015 at 11:52

yea they totally weren't needed, they were only trying to stop the muslim advance into Europe, and you know they never got far into Europe anyway, it's not like they laid siege to Vienna several times

>Arabs invade Spain and Byzantia
>Europeans invade Holy Land to stop Arabs

viruslegion logic

but, i mean, i suppose the crusaders were the bad goys

Because paintings are totally proof... yea good job.

when the thread being made has no argument whatsoever with two clear sides meant to be against each other you know to stay out of it. This is just a counting thread of how many Muslim and Christian people there are looking at the thread.

लिखा द्वारा AlBoZzZ, 18.10.2015 at 12:03

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 18.10.2015 at 11:52

लिखा द्वारा Ghostface, 18.10.2015 at 08:31

The crusades were totally not needed

yea they totally weren't needed, they were only trying to stop the muslim advance into Europe, and you know they never got far into Europe anyway, it's not like they laid siege to Vienna several times

Youre talking about siege of vinna which happend during ottoman empire and then you mix it up with crusaders who happened years before ottoman empire existed. Thats why i always ignore ignorants like you who talk based on what fits him better instead of real facts. No matter how much you tell an ignorant that 2+2=4 he will always say 2+2=5

what about arabic jihad of anatolia and spain and south caucasus all of them happened 400-500 years before than crusades...
and as you said no matter how much you tell an ignorant that 2+2=4 he will always say 2+2=5

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 18.10.2015 at 14:13

Because paintings are totally proof... yea good job.

when the thread being made has no argument whatsoever with two clear sides meant to be against each other you know to stay out of it. This is just a counting thread of how many Muslim and Christian people there are looking at the thread.

so the muslims spread their religion and acquire land peacefully?
who's land was being invaded? of what religion was the land being taken?

the crusades were a reaction to the muslim invasion, only some one who is insane would disagree.

Ooo first time i see tactician arguing in off topic *grabs popcorn*

लिखा द्वारा Tundy, 18.10.2015 at 15:04

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 18.10.2015 at 14:13

Because paintings are totally proof... yea good job.

when the thread being made has no argument whatsoever with two clear sides meant to be against each other you know to stay out of it. This is just a counting thread of how many Muslim and Christian people there are looking at the thread.

so the muslims spread their religion and acquire land peacefully?
who's land was being invaded? of what religion was the land being taken?

the crusades were a reaction to the muslim invasion, only some one who is insane would disagree.

First of all I never actually replied to the thread's question, you are misdirecting the argument. Secondly, I was merely pointing out you used paintings of evidence... Just trying to give off a bad picture, eh?

Now to answer your off topic (to my comment and not the thread) questions:

No, Sayedna Mohamed spread Islam with the sword, but only fought for the reasons of defense from a threat and spreading the Islamic religion. He only fought the people fighting him and not the people of the villages. It's funny how people make the Crusades to be a war of religions; it truly wasn't. People used the cross to make an excuse to claim riches and goods, and trick people into fighting for a 'noble' cause. Yes the Crusades were a reaction to the Muslim spread. Not from the average citizens who just want to make a living, but from the people up top who want more. Its always from the people who want more.

I expect claims against and 'evidence' and all that stuff you think you get. Like I was simply pointing out and you misdirected me: this thread has no use except counting the numbers of Christians and Muslims, or I rather say Westerners and Easterners. That seems to be all what it is nowadays.

Race, religion, gender, and all the other things people discriminate is so irrelevant when it comes to working together as humans towards making our world better. I really don't get why people go out of their way to point out a difference between themselves when we are all united in our differences. The hate in this game is incredible.

People dont really know the difference between jihad and crusade...
crusade were invasions from the catholics to the muslims,pagans and orthodox
jihad is a defensive war where all those who are able muslims are called to defend their nation.

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 18.10.2015 at 12:57

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 18.10.2015 at 11:52

yea they totally weren't needed, they were only trying to stop the muslim advance into Europe, and you know they never got far into Europe anyway, it's not like they laid siege to Vienna several times

>Arabs invade Spain and Byzantia
>Europeans invade Holy Land to stop Arabs
viruslegion logic

Holy Land was part of the Byzantine Empire, stronk history degree

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 18.10.2015 at 14:13

Because paintings are totally proof... yea good job.

way to ignore the maps

लिखा द्वारा Ghostface, 18.10.2015 at 15:44

jihad is a defensive war

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 18.10.2015 at 21:40

लिखा द्वारा Ghostface, 18.10.2015 at 15:44

jihad is a defensive war

muslims defensively took all of north africa and middle east from the romans, and defensively invaded the persians, and defensively invaded the balkans, anatolia and spain.

---

no but for real, you have to be ignorant in world history or insane to believe the muslims were anything but dirty invaders. (you don't even have to look that far, look at the middle east today and europe).

लिखा द्वारा Ghostface, 18.10.2015 at 15:44

People dont really know the difference between jihad and crusade...
crusade were invasions from the catholics to the muslims,pagans and orthodox
jihad is a defensive war where all those who are able muslims are called to defend their nation.

how old are you? are you muslim? do you even know history? do you know how islam spread? do you know how the roman empire and classical civilizations died? classical civilization died because muslim raided coastal lands in the Mediterranean and people had to move in-land and build fortifications (castles are the direct result of muslims and pagans invading europe). Muslims killed the Mediterranean sea trade, kidnapped people and sold them into slavery, Christians never did this to muslims, Christians never invaded Muslims, the crusades was the only exception and that was more than 300 years later after constant muslim raids and invasions.

Ghost Face, you are from macedonia? you know you are not actually related to the macedonians of acient times? you are actually a slav, your people raided,raped,and displaced the real macedonians (greeks).
Greeks don't consider you to be their kin, this map was drafted by the greek government in 1918




Note, i don't use wikipedia as a source, i only use wikipedia for maps in order to explain the plebs, i usually keep sources to my self because is not my job to educate you, if you want to know more about your origins you should open a book and read.

Also, all of this leads to the following, muslims don't mind genociding people, take a look at the armenian genocide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

i am not using that^ as a source to, you can ask more about the armenian genocide to any armenian that is part of the atwar community, they should be able to tell you more about it, i only know about the armenian genocide from armenian people who always tell me about it when we are talking about the holocaust.

muslims also genocide christians, but that is a completly different topic and i don't want to take advantage of the poor armenians who were killed by monsters.

लिखा द्वारा The Tactician, 18.10.2015 at 15:33

-

nice appeal to emotion, nice evading of my evidence, nice changing the topic.

people like you disgust me, i fucking hate when you try to appease everybody and refuse to accept that your people did wrong. You made it clear in your post that you will not accept any evidence that i provide to you, very well i am not impressed, coming from somebody who mutilates its woman.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3076518/Shocking-figures-reveal-92-cent-married-women-Egypt-suffered-female-genital-mutilation.html
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/fgm_prevalence_egypt/en/

but of course, its only propaganda by the west,

Daily reminder that if you support atrocities committed by islam, you are a traitor to western values and ideas.