Strewth!! Not only bleedin'obvious but can't read! Go back over the fatimid and Seljuk bit, it's pretty clear. Look it up for youself, and try to keep Zionist plots from clouding your vision.

As for "Your use of the term "Christian and Jewish Holy lands" suggests that because Judaism and Christianity began in Palestine and are still associated with certain holy sites there, Palestine is therefore somehow eternally and wholly a Christian/Jewish land, a decidedly Christian Zionist/political Zionist perspective".
My perserctive is historical- Neither Arabs nor Muslims have any historical right to the Holy Lands, there religion didn't arise there, the only claim is through conquest. The claim to the "third-most holy site in islam" comes about merely because (as was their habit) they built one atop the Hebrew temple and then claimed the propit acesnded to heaven from it (with no proof nor is Jerusalem mentioned once in Quran). So in that respect, yes, the Holy Land is that only for Jews and Christians. The other cultists can bugger off.

Boaz_D: You pop up like spam, don't you? Are you claiming that, because the Seljuq Turks were knocking on the gates of Constantinople in 1080 and Christian Europe perceived this as a direct threat, this gave them licence not simply to go to Constantinople's aid and restore "the prevailing power balance" as you say, but to push on and invade an otherwise peaceful Palestine as well? Please explain how the Seljuq threat to Constantinople justified messing with areas inhabited by Muslims since the 7thC?

Francis, I agree that Protestantism is a 'mess', but I would prefer a mess that seeks the truth through debate and Biblical study over that of the corruption of pre-Reformation Catholicism, which in its own was was also competing with the Eastern Church.

The two Romes - the Vatican and Constantinople - had long been in competition and a certain amount of conflict.

The Counter-Reformation was not just put into place to try to deal with Protestantism, but to also incorporate some of the lessons of Protestantism into the Church of Rome, which is one reason why you cannot buy indulgences anymore. Vatican 2 was a furtherence of that process. The modern Catholic Church in its basic beliefs and doctrines is as far away from the Catholic Church of the Crusades as modern Protestantism is away from that Church.

Unfortunately all human institutions have among their constituants a number of people who cannot look inward to see where the institution has changed or failed.

The Crusades were a political exercise of a corrupt Church of Rome. In the same way William the Conqueror used Papal authority to justify his invasion of Britain. That invasion had the same theological character as the Crusades, but were really a naked quest for power. There was nothing spiritual in that exercise, the Crusades to Palestine or the Crusades against the Slavs. If you want to research more look up the Battle of Lake Peipus for the activities of Teutonic Knights.

Viking, Why pretend? We both know that I was responding to your original post where there is NO "fatimid and Sejuk bit", just the bald assertion - here we go again - that "the Crusades happened because of Muslim expansionism." Your "historical perspective", that "neither Arabs nor Muslims have any historical right to the Holy Lands [Just how many are there?]" because "there (sic) religion didn't arise there, the only claim is through conquest", doesn't make sense, implying as it does that anyone in the world calling himself a Jew or a Christian has a "historical right to the Holy Lands". A "historical right" to do what there? I suppose, by your (il)logic, an Indonesian Muslim has a "historical right" to the Arabian Peninsula? Today's Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, whether Muslim, Christian, or neither, have national rights (recognised in international law) to Palestine as the land of their ancestors stretching back to the beginnings of human settlement there. As for "Zionist plots", for a self-proclaimed "secular humanist" your little rant about the "Hebrew temple" and the "Holy Land [Only one this time?]...only for Jews and Christians" seems eminently compatible with the claims on Palestine made by political Zionism and those of Christian Zionists. If you're not a believer in one or the other, it must just be your sloppy language and 'thought' processes that give this impression.

Extrapolation is a dangerous debating tool, Boaz.

>>One only needs to look at maps from 630 to 1000 to see the expansion of the Islamic empire by military conquest. Only a thickheaded dullard would not be able to piece together the 'future' based on this trend.<<

One might as convincingly have taken a look at the map of Europe from 432 to 453 and deduced that the Hunnish Empire would cover the entire known world within a few years.

>>It would not matter that it was 'Islamic', it just had to be 'different' from the prevailing power balance for it to be a threat<<

Sorry, that won't wash. The entire sequence of expeditions was orchestrated and executed by anti-Islamic zealots – right down to cross on their armour.

Try as you might, you cannot disguise the Crusades as anything other than what they were – a concerted attempt by one religion to subdue another.

>>The crusades, were a multi dimensional action, and cannot be either written off wholus bolus as 'evil' or condoned.<<

Only in the sense that all historical events should be examined in the context of their own time. Practices that have since died out – burning witches, exercising droit de seigneur, going on Crusades, that sort of thing – have done so largely because people have come to regard them as barbaric. Nonetheless, judged against the prevailing mores, a case can be made that “that's just what they did back then”.

But surely it doesn't reduce the abhorrence that we feel today when we consider those activities?

In these terms, surely the Crusades can only be viewed as evil. If not, please tell us on what level they can be “condoned”?

I have entered the debate a tad late here, but figure better late than never. When comparing the Crusades to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and other locations, two things must be considered:

1) The Crusades were wars - and medieval wars at that. Both sides were guilty of some horrific things in an age when war was not restricted to armed, trained and willing soldiers. Yes, civilians were targeted - but then, medieval armies were largely derived from civilian groups. AND it was the done thing at the time.

2) Kind of stems from 1). Comparing the Crusades with terrorist acts is akin to comparing Abraham's handful of wives with today's polygamists. Things change, and social expectations change, too. The only way the two can be morally equivalent is if the two were set in equivalent social and moral contexts. The Crusaders - and their society at large - believed that what they were doing was right. The terrorists may have believed that what they were doing was right, but their society seems to disagree with them. Morality is more about doing what you believe is right.

Ethically, on the other hand . . . ethics abide by a set of unyielding laws that do not change. Something may be morally right if you believe it is right, but it is still ethically wrong. Sort of complicated, but still . . .

Perhaps the two were ethically equivalent, but morally - no. And there IS a difference.