Jihad vs. Crusades (and Barack Obama’s mistaken words)

10898213_692928057519125_5254873264048418937_n

Barack Obama: “Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ… And in our home country, slavery, and Jim Crow, all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Yes, Obama, President of the United States, actually said those twisted and anti-Christian words last Wednesday morning! Playing straight into the blood-stained hands of the  Islamic barbarians that go under the the name of ISIL (or ISIS), and whose unspeakable crimes continue to afflict millions of defenceless Christians in the Middle East (and even a fair share of non-Christians), he shocked the civilised world.

As one Catholic blogger states: “Clearly, with Barack Huseyn Obama, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. To have the absolute temerity to equate ISIS savagery with whatever excesses occurred centuries and millennia ago is evil and disgusting. Is he justifying the beheadings of children and innocents and the burying alive of people, the murder, the burning alive of a trapped man in a cage?” (Well worthwhile reading this whole article, by the way, and the other articles it links to.)

And so what of the Crusades? Were they anything comparable to the hundreds of years of ongoing jihadism that conquers, since the times of its founder, by the sword? Any objective look into the history of the last approximately 1.400 years of Islam’s existence, can only conclude that there is none whatsoever. But this is exactly what the world (and especially the Islamic world) has been manipulatively spoon-fed, and that the Islamic jihadists believe justifies their brutal, ongoing war against Christendom.

Here is a short YouTube video on the spread of aggressive Jihad, compared to the reality of the largely defensive wars of the Crusades by Dr. Bill Warner, PhD., that Obama would do well to listen to:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Jihad vs. Crusades (and Barack Obama’s mistaken words)

  1. johnhenrycn says:

    Obama is certainly ill-informed about the Crusades and the Inquisition; but what he can’t seem to get into his thick head is that whatever misdeeds Christians back then may have committed, they were back then. As for today, which is the only time period that living people are responsible for, except for a few sporadic outbreaks involving African tribes (which is to say: outbreaks of inter-religious strife there also have a lot to do with blood ties) all religiously motivated acts of violence between Christians and Muslims now taking place are coming from one direction only, and you don’t need a Harvard University degree to figure out which one.

  2. toadspittle says:

    Of course Christians are a lot more Christian these days.
    Much nicer to “gays,” for one thing. No heretic burning.
    But when Catholics start on the old, “That was back then, all different now,” routine, are they prepared to also ignore Catholic persecution by Protestants in the not-too distant past in England, especially on Thomas More’s birthday, for example?… No.
    They don’t want to forget that.
    Er..that’s it.

  3. toadspittle says:

    Quite a few non-aligned people are, understandably, not concerned with which particular religion is making a damned nuisance of itself at present. “If it’s not this one, it’s that one,” they say.
    Foolish, perhaps, misguided – not too hard to comprehend.

  4. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 17:52

    With this comment, putting all religions into the same ‘boat’ you are falling for the same old misguided adage as all of today’s secularists. You are missing two vital truths:

    1) There is only One True Religion… all the others may contain more of less of elements of truth written into their codes of belief, but only Christianity is the right one…. And of course within Christianity, the Holy Catholic Church, that is the only one that was given ‘the keys’ by the Saviour Himself with the authority “to bind and to loose”.

    2) When Catholics commit abominations they do so in disobedience to Catholic teaching – when Mohammedans commit them, they are doing so in obedience to Mohammedan teaching*.

    (*Perhaps we are just lucky that most Muslims are not basically violent people and prefer to take no notice of these teachings!)

  5. steveesq says:

    Reblogged this on EX MAGNA SILENTIUM or EX MAGNO SILENTIO and commented:
    obama the moslem demeaned Christianity a couple of days ago, and tried to make a moral equivalence argument between the moslem barbarity and Christianity by raised the boogieman’s favorite refrain, the Crusades. Here is a history lesson in five minutes. No doubt his muslim brotherhood buddies are feeding him his lines.

  6. steveesq says:

    Thanks for the post. I just reblogged at exmagnasilentium.wordpress.com

  7. toadspittle says:

    In case you think I’m “putting all religions in the same boat,” Kathleen – I’m not.

    …when Mohammedans commit (abominations), they are doing so in obedience to Mohammedan teaching.”
    I see this written comparatively frequently, and don’t know enough about Islam to be able to either verify or falsify it.
    Could you, Kathleen, or someone else more learned than Toad – give a concrete example?
    From The Koran, I suppose.

    “There is only One True Religion…”
    Yes, they all say that, don’t they? Very irritating. “Cracked Record,” GC would call it. (“Cracked Vinyl” possibly?)

    (Three thumbs up for my for my comment on the 7th (yesterday) @17.44, and NO thumbs down, so far.
    What is the world coming to? Where did Toad go wrong? What can it mean?)

  8. Tom Fisher says:

    Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ… And in our home country, slavery, and Jim Crow, all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

    It seems to me that his primary point is that there is nothing unique to Islam about the use of religion to justify violence and atrocities. And he doesn’t actually condemn the Crusades per se. Even if we accept the Crusades as worthwhile, atrocities occurred in the name of Christ. The appalling slaughter in Constantinople by the Crusaders was given a fig-leaf of respectability by the fact that the Byzantines were the wrong sort of Christian. And some white slave owners did indeed seek biblical sanction for the slave system. — His point is that we Christians need to remember that even our religion can be potentially twisted to violent ends. The problem is not unique to Islam, and Islam itself is not monolithic, Sufism and Wahhabism could hardly be further apart. I don’t think his remarks were anti-Christian.

    Johnhenry’s comment is surprising given that I’m sure he remembers the atrocities committed in Bosnia in the 90s, and how many of them were justified.

  9. A friend here in Germany sent me an e-mail and asked if I’d heard about Obama’s “Crusades” comment. (And I know that sarcasm and irony don’t travel well on the Internet, but I’m going to risk it anyway.) I replied to my friend this way:

    Yes, thank you, Hans. I’ve seen and heard the news. It’s been all over the US media. Let me see if I correctly understand the implications of the Islamists’ argument (which Obama appeared to repeat so succintly): because a war between Islam and the West, called the “Crusades,” occurred nine hundred years ago, Moslem terrorists are today justified in burning a pilot alive and beheading at least five innocent civilians from America, Europe, and Japan, while making video recordings of their actions for all the world to see.

    Surely no one in his right mind would dare call that behavior uncivilized or barbaric, would they?

    I hope such a brief expression of my thoughts contains the proper amount of sympathy and understanding. I certainly wouldn’t want to be accused of being Islamophobic.

  10. Tom Fisher says:

    if I correctly understand the implications of the Islamists’ argument (which Obama appeared to repeat so succintly): because a war between Islam and the West, called the “Crusades,” occurred nine hundred years ago, Moslem terrorists are today justified in burning a pilot alive and beheading at least five innocent civilians from America, Europe, and Japan, while making video recordings of their actions for all the world to see.

    I think that really is an argument that the Islamists make. — And they are psychotic morons (a dangerous combination). — But it’s not true that Obama was ‘repeating’ the Islamist argument.

  11. Tribunus says:

    So, Tom, Islamists are psychotic morons, eh?
    What – all of them?
    All psychotic?
    All morons?

  12. johnhenrycn says:

    Tom, your reference to the Balkan atrocities in the 1990s is a difficult one to reconcile with my (blanket) statement that “all religiously motivated acts of violence between Christians and Muslims now taking place” are coming from the Muslim side, and I did wrestle with that before posting my comment, but a few points:

    (a) the 1990s are not “now” (Pettifoggery Alert!😉

    (b) the Bosnian war was primarily a territorial civil war brought about by the disintegration of Yugoslavia – not a religiously motivated war; and I note that during it, or part of it, the Catholic Croats were allied with the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbian Orthodox,

    (c) atrocities were committed by all the belligerents – Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenians – and although most were perpetrated by the Serbs, I don’t think anyone can say who started them, nor were the atrocities always Christian on Muslim or the reverse. Sometimes it was Orthodox on Catholic or the reverse, and perhaps there were even Muslim on Muslim atrocities, because again, this was mainly a territorial conflict rather than a religious one.

  13. Tom Fisher says:

    the 1990s are not “now” (Pettifoggery Alert!

    I was worried you’d say that😉

    I certainly agree that the overwhelming majority of violence which is “religiously justified” by the perpetrators is committed Muslims. — There’s no doubt about that. However it was very common during the Bosnian conflict for (primarily Serb) atrocities against the Muslim population to be framed in religious terms — and occasionally egged on by hard line Orthodox clerics.

    And this is relevant because it relates to Obama’s actual point: Although Islam is the main conduit for religiously ‘justified’ violence, it does not have a monopoly on it. Christianity has been twisted to violent ends both historically and in modern times. — And a good case can be made for that

  14. ginnyfree says:

    All I can say is he really doesn’t get it does he? God bless him in is post-Presidential years. I think the greatest joke God could play on that poor man is to convert him. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  15. johnhenrycn says:

    Convert him from what is the question. His father was a Muslim. So too his stepfather who raised him as a Muslim in a mosque and madrassa until age 11. His African half-brothers are Muslims.

  16. johnhenrycn says:

    …er… about Obama’s childhood education… my last comment is open to question, but his paternal parentage is not.

  17. Tribunus says:

    You’re at it, again, Moderator, editing my posts to say things you prefer rather than what I said.
    If that is what you call Christian charity, it’s an unusual approach to it.

    [The Moderator – Tribunus, none of your posts released today have been edited.]

  18. Tribunus says:

    I repeat my question to Tom Fisher (if the so-called Moderator will allow it): Do you really think that all Islamists are psychotic morons? For instance, do you think that King Abdullah of Jordan is a “psychotic moron”? You would be the first to complain if someone called all Christians “psychotic morons”, wouldn’t you?

  19. Tribunus says:

    And the day before that.
    And before that…

  20. JabbaPapa says:

    King Abdullah of Jordan is not an Islamist.

  21. Tribunus says:

    Oh, right. That’ll be the definition of “Islamist” according to the Jabba Dictionary, then, will it?

    Perhaps you think he is a Zoroastrian, Jabba?

  22. kathleen says:

    Tom @ 6:42 yesterday

    “It seems to me that his primary point is that there is nothing unique to Islam about the use of religion to justify violence and atrocities.”

    What???? Nothing unique? Just what all people have been doing in the Name of God all along?

    Have you any idea of the barbarities being committed by these Islamic jihadists, Tom… just in these last few months? (And it is no more than representative of most of their whole bellicose history.) There is no comparison between Islamic atrocities (beheadings, rape, torture, kidnapping, slavery, etc., etc., – the list is as long as my arm) to ANYTHING Christians have done EVER in the whole of their own history… which is in no way sinless either of course! In just a few weeks [yes, this is a fact] ISIS and BOKO HARAM (and other Islamists who are not members of these radical groups) have murdered more poor innocents than the Spanish Inquisition did in all the centuries of its existence.
    Obama was completely cockeyed to even mention the Inquisition and, yes, the Crusades too, as though they were comparable examples of religious fanaticism. Islamic sympathies on his part perhaps? (as JH insinuates). Yes, I think so. Or perhaps total ignorance of the truth.

    Below two excellent articles on learning a bit more on what the Crusades were really all about:

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/crash-course-on-the-crusades

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-real-history-of-the-crusades

  23. Tom Fisher says:

    Do you really think that all Islamists are psychotic morons? For instance, do you think that King Abdullah of Jordan is a “psychotic moron”? You would be the first to complain if someone called all Christians “psychotic morons”, wouldn’t you?

    King Abdullah of Jordan is hardly an Islamist!!

  24. toadspittle says:

    “King Abdullah of Jordan is hardly an Islamist!!”

    An Arab, ain’t he?
    They’re all the same. Mistreating camels …And what not.
    I read it in a newspaper.
    So it must be true.

  25. ginnyfree says:

    The only thing telling about our current President’s speech regarding the Crusades and the Inquisition, was that he is pretty much ignorant of religions and their particular place history. He’s not got the facts and it showed. He is also doing as some others do, hoping his audience knows even less than he does about history so his rendition will be the only rendition that matters. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  26. Tribunus says:

    [The Moderator – Tribunus, none of your posts released today have been edited.]

    Oh come. You just censored about 5 of ’em, already.

    Your prerogative to be as biased as you wish but at least don’t deny it!

  27. toadspittle says:

    “(Obama) is also doing as some others do, hoping his audience knows even less than he does…”
    You make him sound suspiciously like a politician, Ginnyfree. What do you think?

  28. Tribunus says:

    Nice one, Toad!

    All Arabs are Muslim camel-botherers? No racism, there. Nah!

    Ever heard of the Melkite, Maronite, Assyrian or Syrian Catholics?

    Largely Arab. Toad. Now. Today. Fact.

  29. Tribunus says:

    Well, folks. The Moderator has now decided to censor me from saying anything at all.

    Nice, Moderator.

    Very open discussion. Impressive.

    Fair, open-minded, and charitable approach.

    Nice.

    [Moderator writes: Tribunus, your posts are now going automatically into our spam folder for some unknown reason, so apologies, but noone has sent them there. They are all, bar one, now reinstated. Please be civil.]

  30. Tribunus says:

    [The Moderator – Tribunus, none of your posts released today have been edited.]

    [Moderator writes: Tribunus, your posts are now going automatically into our spam folder for some unknown reason, so apologies, but no-one has sent them there. They are all, bar one, now reinstated. Please be civil.]

    Which one? The one that you didn’t agree with, again?

    Be civil? Ok – like Toad? Whose posts, however vile, never seem to find their way into the “spam folder”?

    Righto, Mod. Whatever you say, old thing. You’re the boss. Or should I have said monarch?

  31. kathleen says:

    Toad, at 6:07 yesterday, and referring to my comment about Islamic violence being “obedience to Mohammadan teachings”, you asked:
    “Could you, Kathleen, or someone else more learned than Toad – give a concrete example?
    From The Koran, I suppose.”

    Sorry to have taken so long to respond – I got caught up with other things – but I think I shall let others, who are more “learned” than either you or me on these matters, to fill you in with “concrete examples”.😉
    Therefore, take a look at this article by Taylor Marshall, which gives a few select quotes from the Koran relevant to the topic, and also links to another which provides a great deal more Koranic quotations, plus quotes from the Hadith, and some history on the early expansion of Islam:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

  32. kathleen says:

    Toad, you may not have noticed I replied to your question last night here (^), as comments are coming thick and fast on other threads right now.🙂

    Please read those very revealing facts in the links I gave you, proving the point that Islam is NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE… in spite of the reality that most adherents of this faith system are not (thankfully) avid for jihad.

    Here is a prophetic piece written by the great Catholic author, Hilaire Belloc, in 1929 – amazing! He foresaw what many failed to see at the tragic post-war break up of Holy Christendom.

    “We shall almost certainly have to reckon with Islam in the near future. Perhaps, if we lose our Faith, it will rise. For after this subjugation of the Islamic culture by the nominally Christian had already been achieved, the political conquerors of that culture began to notice two disquieting features about it. The first was that its spiritual foundation proved immovable; the second that its area of occupation did not recede, but on the contrary slowly expanded. […]
    In my own youth the decaying power of Islam (for it was still decaying) in the Near East was a strong menace to the peace of Europe. Those old people of whom I speak had grandparents in whose times Islam was still able to menace the West. The Turks besieged Vienna and nearly took it, less than a century before the American Declaration of Independence. Islam was then our superior, especially in military art. There is no reason why its recent inferiority in mechanical construction, whether military or civilian, should continue indefinitely. Even a slight accession of material power would make the further control of Islam by an alien culture difficult. A little more and there will cease that which our time has taken for granted, the physical domination of Islam by the disintegrated Christendom we know.”

    P.S. H/T to Steve (who comments above) for this Belloc quote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s