Mac – “ the Crusades should be seen in the context of the centuries long conflict started by Moslems.” Spot on!

Kactuz—great post--good to see you back on the forum.

Horos,it matters not which religion started a war.They as a bad each other.Religions are the tools of the elites to grab and maintain power.Religion ad nothing to do with any deity.Many wars are started by false flag events and history constantly fails to opportion blame to the real cause.

Jjplug

>>In which case would you be happy for radical Muslims to freely and far more publicly spout their views in Australia. Would you be happy if their views were given way more coverage in the Australian media? If they were able to speak directly to the Australian public?>>

As I have said in many posts I respect the right to freedom of speech excepting only incitement to violence narrowly defined. I've repeatedly given the following example:

Jews are slimy and dishonest – allowed.

Kill the Jews – not allowed.

(For the record, I am Jewish)

So, yes, subject to that one constraint – no actual incitement to violence – I defend the right of radical Muslims to say whatever they like.

Of course the same right of free speech gives kafirs the right to say what they think about Islam without let or hindrance.

Would I be "happy" if radical Muslims had a bigger megaphone in Australia?

No, I would not. But, since when did anyone's right to free speech depend on my happiness? Or yours for that matter?

>>if you truly supported his right to free speech you'd let the author speak too without abusing him.>>

Muqtedar Khan is free to write whatever he likes and OLO is free to publish it. Commenting on whatever Muqtedar Khan has written is part of MY right of free speech. If he thinks it's abusive too bad,

Freedom of speech means that Khan, you and I have the right to say what we like irregardless of who dislikes it. It does NOT mean Khan can sprout and I don’t have a right of reply.

>>By the way, this is an Australian website, so the First Amendment doesn't apply here.>>

Terry Jones is in the US, not Australia. Therefore my comment about his first amendment rights stands.

You call it points-scoring, bigmal...

>>In your rush to score points you obviously have NOT noticed that the quotes you are repeating in capitals, belong to some person who posted a comment<<

I call it providing context.

And thanks for this, mac

>>I'm not disputing your facts,obviously most of the Crusaders were just psychopathic gangsters or deluded peasants,my point was that the Crusades should be seen in the context of the centuries long conflict started by Moslems.<<

Ah, it's the "Aww Mum, but he started it" argument. A most valuable insight.

Interestingly, the rationale of the crusading "Soldiers of God" is eerily reminiscent of something far more contemporary.

"They had also been told by the pope that if they were killed, they would automatically go to heaven as they were fighting for God."

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cru2.htm

No virgins waiting to greet them, I notice. But in every other respect identical to the excuses made by today's fanatics.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Pericles,Arjay,

Actually you've both missed the point,I thought the significance was obvious,apparently not. It is in fact relevant to consider the original source of conflict between Moslem and Christian.
Moslem propagandists usually represent the Crusades,out of context, as a sudden outburst of Christian religious fanaticism. There's more to it than that,until the 18th century the West was under continuous pressure from Islamic states. However, Moslems present themselves as the perpetual victims of Western aggression,which is of course self-serving nonsense,unfortunately many ignorant non-Moslems accept these lies and think that Westerners 'owe' the Islamic world. That's why history is relevant today.

Dear mac,

One factor promoting the Crusades had nothing to do with either religion or Muslim pressure. With primogeniture younger sons of the nobility inherited little or nothing and had no skills except those of warfare. Wealth and land were possible in the Middle East. That took pressure off Europe where the younger sons of the nobility were a great nuisance and menace.