Moderate Muslims??

[Alex179]

My views are not totally related to the Crusades, anyways.   Though it is a way of doing something to the area.

Why do you keep bringing up the past?  That was religious and what I am considering is counter-religious.   There will be no living people in the area, regardless of their religion or race.   As nice as isolation from the area entirely sounds, I do not see it as a realistic possibility, given the past investments (both political and economic) involved.

[Calandale]

My views are not totally related to the Crusades, anyways.   Though it is a way of doing something to the area.

Obviously. But, you attacked my statement about them.

Why do you keep bringing up the past?

Because you keep making untrue statements about it.
I can't tell you about the future, but I sure the hell can
complain when something I KNOW is wrong is said.

[Alex179]

You used the word Crusade and I merely said that there were two opposing sides (overall, even though it is more complex than just that).   I would like to kill off both by chopping it off at the head (by not allowing anyone to use that land, they might as well forget about ever visiting there).   Everyone is welcome to go there to die.   The place to settle the Ishmael vs Isaac debate might as well be there, as it is fitting.  It will be settled when no humans can ever live there again and most of both factions are dead with their shitty religions of Abraham being destroyed in the process.  That is where I was going and your point still is both dull and moot.

[Calandale]

Perhaps. But, it's rather hard to take the political
views of someone who lacks the historical background
seriously. Like with the torture issue, where once again you
show a great deal of ignorance. Now, one can be ignorant about
specifics in the period of the crusades, and still understand the
situation in the near east well enough to discuss it, BUT when
one clearly talks out their ass, it's hard to believe that they've
invested thought into any discussion.

[Alex179]

You think I seriously would choose the Middle East as my backdrop for humanity to kill itself off?   I just think it would work well enough to thin the herd.

As far as people in the Crusades purely fighting along religious lines, that Christians were killing each other is no secret (you learn it in fucking high school).  You are nitpicking since there are plenty of instances of fighting across whatever lines (this happens in a good deal of wars). The majority of the fighting and the rallying cry to get new soldiers was mainly to fight religiously for the land and whatever imaginary thing they wanted to get from there (Ark of the Covenant is one example).    What leads the masses to fight for the cause is what the issue ends up being.   If there is nothing there to rally the masses around (Religion in the case of the Crusade).   Then there is less reason to fight over just some random land that has very little value outside of its religious context.

[Calandale]

(continuing nitpicking)

I don't know what they teach in high school these
days - in my day, the crusades were barely touched.
Certainly there was no mention of the indiscriminate
slaughter of all inhabitants of Acre - not fighting, just
slaughter - christian, jew, and muslim.

And, it wasn't just the Christians involved in interfaith
fighting - there is no chance in hell that the first crusade
would have succeeded (or come anywhere close) had
there not been wars going on between the Muslim
states. Much like Cortes  later, the crusaders got
something of a free ride due to the political situation.

[Alex179]

There have been infighting among factions of Islam for a long ass time.   This was before the Crusades obviously with an Imam I forget the name of, where Shiites and Sunnis probably originally separated IIRC because I can't be bothered to look it up or anything.   When the Crusades happened, Islam didn't stop its divisive infighting lol.   Neither did the underlying distaste among Europeans fighting under a Christian flag.   That is something that should be obvious, as humanity is never completely unified (the US sure is not unified).

I knew here was a total slaughter at Acre, not much more from what I remember in Highschool, but I went to probably the most liberal highschool in the state lol.  It certainly was the best as indicated by the rankings over the last 20 odd years of it being in existence as an academically gifted magnet school.   They didn't cover the Crusades that much, but we learned it was a massive embarrassment and that there was infighting of course.   That doesn't change the overall motivating factor of the whole thing, which was the whole Ishmael versus Jacob (Israel) as rightful owners of Isaac (and Abraham's) legacy and the land formerly known as Canaan.   Wooohoo for tribal infighting that still occurs to this day.   Muhammad built his temple on the site where the people think the Arc of the Covenant might be lol.   That also used to be Solomon's temple (redone by Herod during Roman times).   So much bullshit over there its not funny, and people who still buy into it seriously to boot.   Might as well kill them all.

[Calandale]

I'm jealous of the level of history you got in HS.
We had maybe two pages on the crusades. MOST
of history was covered by so little. A chapter on each of
the world wars, which were so much less significant than
the prior stuff. Hell, I can't even remember the most pivotal
war in europe (the 30 years war) being covered - the peace
of Westphalia was were the real roots of the modern wars lay.

I'm not really convinced that the old jewish history was that
important as to the crusader motivations though. Jerusalem was
magical because of Jesus, not some prior matters.

I'm all for killing 'em all though.

[Alex179]

Yeah they had other artifacts they wanted there of Christian significance as well.   I don't remember it all, but we had to do quite a bit in our history classes.   There was a reason why I dropped out of the IB (International Baccalaureate) Program, you couldn't have a life if you were going to handle that much coursework.   AP History classes were enough, as I had my General Education qualification for history pretty much covered after I graduated from highschool.

[Calandale]

I don't think I had a tougher college course than
my AP History course. Certainly not in the humanities.
Our teacher drove us hard. Payed off though, I guess.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Too bad Fakesagan's account got deleted.   

[Jack]

Not seeing that username in this thread.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Fakesagan's video was in the OP.

It was a good piece of reductio ad absurdum.

He mocked the idea of a "moderate Muslim" by saying he was a moderate Klansman.

[Walkie]

Fakesagan's video was in the OP.

It was a good piece of reductio ad absurdum.

He mocked the idea of a "moderate Muslim" by saying he was a moderate Klansman.

Ah. thanks for the clarification.
"Good piece of reductio ad absurdum" it might be, but I seem to recall that somebody came up with a damned good argument against (not that i understood that argument til i got to your  post)
So...maybe sombody should start a new thread on this question, beginning with a brief resume of this one? (bearing in mind that nobody reads page 3 of anything.... unless it calls itself the "Sun" )

[Jack]

Fakesagan's video was in the OP.

Okay, got it. Thought you meant a member account here.

So...maybe sombody should start a new thread on this question,

Yes, do that.