Comments on: The Crusaders Were Right

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Thu, 12 May 2005 12:58:27 +0000

Around the Blogosphere
The Crusaders were Right! Outside the Beltway Vermont town wants to secede to New Hampshire (...hm, they can do that?)...

By: legion

legion — Wed, 11 May 2005 17:09:19 +0000

I think Howse needs to brush up a little more on non-Christian history... Under the Moors in southern Europe, and especially Iberia, Jews were treated far better than they were by Christians anywhere else on the planet. It wasn't until Isabella and Ferdinand took over that the Jews were pogrom'ed and persecuted there. Also, why is Christian expansion throughout Europe inherently "good", while Muslim expansion over the Middle East inherently "bad"? While Islam might not have been very conciliatory with local Christians, Howse doesn't seem to recall how the Christians treated the Pagans, Druids, etc. in Europe. And I think someone already mentioned the lack of Muslim expansion after a certain point... "It takes no great counter-factual leap to see what would have happened if Crusaders had not fought back. " ?!? Howse is full of crap. The overall impression I get is one over overweening bigotry - anything that other religion does is bad, while anything my religion does is good. I'm certainly no defender of religious bigotry and extremeism, but someone should tell Howse it doesn't look any better when Christians do it than when Muslims do it.

By: FireWolf

FireWolf — Wed, 11 May 2005 16:17:18 +0000

Good article today James!

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 11 May 2005 15:34:11 +0000

Gee, how did the Crusaders treat the Christians of Byzantium and the Jews of the Holy Land, I wonder? Speaking of killing and subjecting.

Schismatics & Christ-killers, Jim! Deus lo volt!

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Wed, 11 May 2005 14:44:16 +0000

Wow. James is quoting Juan Cole to buttress his argument?

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Wed, 11 May 2005 14:28:52 +0000

Gee, how did the Crusaders treat the Christians of Byzantium and the Jews of the Holy Land, I wonder? Speaking of killing and subjecting.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 11 May 2005 14:11:06 +0000

Leaving aside the pathetic inability of Hollywood to work "God" into the crusades, the overall history of the post seems questionable. What evidence is there that the Moors were expansionist after the battle of Tours, let alone in the 2d millenium? And I don't see how fighting over Jerusalem kept the Muslims out of London. An early version of Bush's "flypaper" excuse? The crusades in the Holy Land were largely ineffective, with only the 1st & 3d, if I recall aright, making even a temporary difference. And the 4th crusade did more to bring the Muslims into Europe than the other two did to keep them out.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 11 May 2005 14:08:05 +0000

I wonder if the Saudis would let him direct the video that would "cap off" that career?

By: Jack Tanner

Jack Tanner — Wed, 11 May 2005 14:01:32 +0000

'"If we could just take God out of the equation," says Sir Ridley, like John Lennon in Imagine, "there'd be no f---ing problem."' I wonder how long his directing career would last in Saudi?