"How is it a defensive war, Putin, when it's then launching an OFFENSIVE on Jerusalem to take it FROM the Muslims...and then the 4th Crusade"

In 638, the Muslims conquer Palestine & Syria (including Jerusalem).
In 642, the Muslims conquer Egypt and put the Persian Empire to the sword
From 644- 656 - the Muslims annex Armenia, Iran, & Cyprus, mount invasions of Afghanistan begin their invasion of the Christian Maghreb
By 709 - the entirety of North Africa was under Muslim rule
711 - the Muslims launch their invasion of Spain, quickly taking over all but the extreme north.
In the 730s, the Muslims were invading France, but turned back in a historic defeat.
In the 750s, the Arabs conquer Central Asia
In the 800s/early 900s, the Muslims conquer Sicily, Crete, and southern Italy
900s - Byzantines push back, but Arab threat replaced by Turkish threat
From 1071 until the time of the Crusades, the Turks conquered the Asia minor.

Seriously, I don't get how someone who thinks all of Israel's actions are defensive in nature can claim that Christian resistance to more than 400 years of Muslims expansionism, including recent conquests of the Asia Minor, were anything but defensive.

"In 638, the Muslims conquer Palestine & Syria (including Jerusalem)."

Considering there was first Judea and then Roman-controlled Judea, I must ask where, then, the English, french, and other such Christian states derived the right to fight a "defensive" war by fighting for land that was never theirs...

If we're going by religious-control, then technically the Jews held it (and people before the Jews) and then the not-yet-Christianized Romans...

So...HOW is that land naturally Christian land that required defending after Muslims...well, did what the Romans did, and conquer what was once a Jewish kingdom?

More importantly, how do English or French forces have any claim to it with their Crusading forces?

Finally, if you can be so good as to explain how murdering innocent Muslim AND Jewish women and children is "defense" in any sense of the word, please, by all means...

^ The Crusaders also murdered most of the Christians of Jerusalem as well for refusing to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Some defensive Holy War there.

Also, the Muslims were welcomed with open arms by the majority of Christians in the Levant and Egypt in the 7th century since they had been oppressed for centuries by the Greeks over doctrinal disputes (Monophysitism vs. Diophysitism), high taxes, debt peonage/slavery, and constant pointless warfare with the Persians. All of that came to an end under the relatively light hand of the Caliphate, who were hailed as liberators.

A libertarian defends dhimmitude. Now I've seen everything.

"Considering there was first Judea and then Roman-controlled Judea, I must ask where, then, the English, french, and other such Christian states derived the right to fight a "defensive" war by fighting for land that was never theirs..."

I can answer this. The Roman Empire, when it became Christian, continued to hold all the lands it had conquered. The Roman-controlled province of Judea, then, /was/ Roman, and, by extension, Christian. It was (religiously speaking, not historically speaking) taken from the Jews because of their mismanagement of the Tetragrammaton's gift (taken from the Jews by Assyria, then Babylon, then Rome, I believe), and it was Christian because of the Christ. The European powers considered it theirs because of history, nothing more. It hadn't been Hebrew land for nearly a thousand years (give or take a couple hundred).

Says the beltwaytarian who advocates for perpetual war and slaughter on those rebellious Muslims who just won't get on their knees and accept their proper place in the New World Order.

Next I imagine you'll tell me that belts were invented by Muslims for non-Muslims to wear as a symbol of their submission, like at least one prominent expert on "dhimmitude" insists.

I do no such thing, and by invoking the New World Order you have shown yourself to be someone whose opinions can be safely ignored.

Sure you do. When was the last time you opposed a war on a Muslim country? There have been so many to choose from lately, but all I can recollect was you being a little annoyed about the Libyan invasion/coup not getting proper congressional approval.

"Muslim" country? Religions get to own nations now? Now excuse me, I have some latkes from yesterday's trip to Walker Bros to warm up.

Er, yes, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates, Pakistian, Malaysia, and Mauritania are Islamic theocracies.

Walker Bros is heaven on earth. Love eating there.

"The Crusaders also murdered most of the Christians of Jerusalem as well for refusing to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Some defensive Holy War there."

Was that before or after the expulsion of the Christian population of Jerusalem by the Fatimid governor?

"All of that came to an end under the relatively light hand of the Caliphate, who were hailed as liberators."

Came to an end? What are you talking about. The Muslim invaders forced human tribute/annual quotas of slaves on conquered populations (which were written into the treaties), one of the main reasons why the "light hand of the Umayyads" resulted in internal revolts which paved the way for the Abbasids to take over. The idea that Islam forbade slavery is a joke. The need for slaves was one of the main reasons why the Muslim invaders kept raiding & attacking lands in the so-called Dar-Al-Hab.

As for taxes, I suppose we'll pretend the djizya made the "liberated" Christians feel all happy inside.

I wonder what our Islamophilic "libertarian friend" feels about the "light hand of the Umayyads" in their conquests of India.

http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2008/12/islams-other-victims-india-by-serge.html

"Says the beltwaytarian who advocates for perpetual war and slaughter on those rebellious Muslims who just won't get on their knees and accept their proper place in the New World Order."

Have you been paying attention? The New World Order has been replacing secular "infidel" governments with Islamist states. I don't get your anti-Americanism, since America has been a boon to your Muslim friends everywhere it goes. Secular Iraq, replaced by Islamist Iraq. Secular Libya, replaced by Islamist Libya. Secular Egypt, replaced by Islamist Egypt. Secular Syria, being attacked by the New World Order on behalf of Islamists. Secular Yugoslavia, destroyed on behalf of Bosnian Islamists. Even the Taliban was being handed big checks and a pipeline deal.

"Finally, if you can be so good as to explain how murdering innocent Muslim AND Jewish women and children is "defense" in any sense of the word, please, by all means..."

Excuse me, can you tell me when all of Syria, Egypt, the Maghreb, the Asia Minor, Armenia, Spain, France, etc, were considered Jewish kingdoms? Why is it Israel gets license to defend itself but the Christians are expected to roll over and take it?

Furthermore the Jews hadn't controlled Jerusalem for centuries prior to the Crusades, even as an autonomous province within Rome. So yeah, it's defensive. Much like if the Palestinians suddenly seized Haifa, fighting back would be defensive despite the fact Israel only came to take this city in the 20th century. Do you have this weird rule where one group is given title to land forever even if taken by conquest, but everybody else is a usurper?

"Excuse me, can you tell me when all of Syria, Egypt, the Maghreb, the Asia Minor, Armenia, Spain, France, etc, were considered Jewish kingdoms? Why is it Israel gets license to defend itself but the Christians are expected to roll over and take it?"

You didn't answer my question--you dodged it.

(And not even as awesomely as the Artful Dodger.)

I asked, SPECIFICALLY:

"Finally, if you can be so good as to explain how murdering innocent Muslim AND Jewish women and children is "defense" in any sense of the word, please, by all means..."

In JUST THAT STATEMENT ALONE, I said NOTHING about Jewish kingdoms in that sentence as quoted.

So, please answer the question *I ASKED* before I take your point with the slightest degree of seriousness.

As if Muslims never killed innocent people while building the caliphate...

The Crusades were neither exceptionally bloody nor exceptionally unjustified, they were just exceptionally interesting and the disproportionate focus they get influences the historiography.

"You didn't answer my question--you dodged it."

I answered your question. The purpose of the Crusades was to beat back Turkish expansion in the late 1000s, after nearly 400 years of constant Islamic expansion. That atrocities occurred is not in doubt (although they pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by the Muslims), but you continue to ignore the historical context in which the Crusades occurred. Furthermore you ignore the fact that prior to the Crusaders even entering Jerusalem, the Christian population was attacked and expelled from the city.

So I ask again, since you've ignored this three times now. What are the Christians supposed to do when Syria, Egypt, Armenia, the Asia Minor, the Maghreb, Spain, Italy, Sicily, France, and Constantinople itself all come under attack and/or are annexed by the Caliphate? Just roll over? How is fighting back not defensive?

Furthermore I also answered your other two questions, which preceded the one about 'slaughtering innocents'. So the idea that I dodged your question is *projection*.

You continue to ignore any points I'm making, and just throw out more red herrings.

http://i.imgur.com/mKQDf.png

"Came to an end? What are you talking about."

Well, I listed widespread religious oppression over doctrinal disputes, high taxes, debt peonage/slavery, and constant pointless warfare with the Persians. Are you denying that:
1) Byzantine Diophysites no longer oppressed and slaughtered Monophysites in lands under the suzerainty of the Caliphate
2) The jizya was lower than the battery of taxes the Byzantines inflicted on their subjects
3) Conversion to Islam was a quick and easy ticket out of slavery and debt peonage for non-Muslims
4) After the Muslims conquered the Levant and Persia, there were no more wars Levantines were expected to fight against Persians
?

"the "light hand of the Umayyads" resulted in internal revolts which paved the way for the Abbasids to take over."

Internal revolts by other Muslims and recent converts to Islam brought about the end of the Umayyads, not the "oppressed" non-Muslims. The Umayyads were wiped out in a palace massacre, and the two armies that had decided the issue before that were both Muslim ones.

"As for taxes, I suppose we'll pretend the djizya made the "liberated" Christians feel all happy inside. "

Are you seriously suggesting that Christians paid no taxes under the Romans? The jizya brought in far less revenue than the older taxes levied by Constantinople, and the Christian communities were free to raise the money among themselves as a community in any way they saw fit. Funny that you go on about a "social contract" and the responsibility for all proles to pay taxes, but then complain that a tax is absolute proof of religious oppression.

"The Muslim invaders forced human tribute/annual quotas of slaves on conquered populations (which were written into the treaties)"

The devshirme was an Ottoman system, not an Umayyad one. And it was quadrennial, not annual.

As for slavery, yes there was slavery in the Islamic world, but it was completely unlike the chattel slavery seen in the "civilized" world. Slaves were allowed to own property and as often as not bought their own freedom in the Islamic world. They also rose to great heights in government - the 'slaves' taking over was such a common occurrence in Islamic civilization as to be a cliche.

"I don't get your anti-Americanism, since America has been a boon to your Muslim friends everywhere it goes. Secular Iraq, replaced by Islamist Iraq. Secular Libya, replaced by Islamist Libya. Secular Egypt, replaced by Islamist Egypt..."

But more importantly than whether or not the dictators in all these nations pray five times a day or not, the power and influence of the US and its corporations has greatly expanded. The Iraqi military went from using Soviet equipment to using American equipment - at big expense for Iraq and profit for General Dynamics et al. I'm sure Iraq's oil exploration and extraction contracts are all firmly in the hands of American (or American-aligned) corporations and the threat of Iraqi oil being sold in Euros is dead. Whatever oil revenues Iraq is being allowed to keep are almost certainly being spend on American weapons, mercenaries, and Wall Street investments. I'm sure the story is more or less the same in every other country. The "Secular to Islamist" story is all window dressing intended for public consumption by a public that knows only that Muslims are strange and other-y. It's all a titillating cover story to keep everyone distracted with (mostly fake or exaggerated) stories of eeevil Muslim religious fanaticism while the real power in these countries is being consolidated and wealth extracted into western hands (or at least the hands of satraps loyal to America). Much like the media keeps us all distracted with arguments over whether the top tax bracket should be 39% or 35% while completely ignoring all the loopholes and deductions that allow the truly rich to weasel out of paying any taxes at all.

"I wonder what our Islamophilic "libertarian friend" feels about the "light hand of the Umayyads" in their conquests of India. "

The website you link to is just more "belts are a symbol of Islamic oppression!" nonsense - the page in question was penned (interestingly enough) by one of your fellow apologists for Serbian atrocities against Muslims who was also an inspiration for the Norwegian mass child murderer. Some source you have there.

So did it occur or didn't it occur? Is Will Durant a fraud too? He wrote at length in his "Story of Civilization" that the Muslim conquest of India was the most bloody event in history.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28014130/Moslem-Conquest-of-India-by-Will-Durant

I'm glad that the vanguard of liberty against the warfare/welfare state defends one of the most brutal and systematic conquerors in world history.

" It's all a titillating cover story to keep everyone distracted with (mostly fake or exaggerated) stories of eeevil Muslim religious fanaticism while the real power in these countries is being consolidated and wealth extracted into western hands (or at least the hands of satraps loyal to America)."

Yes, those religious minorities fleeing in terror and/or being killed by our new Libyan and Syrian friends is really being widely reported in the media conspiracy you're talking about...right. Jesus you're deluded.

"Whatever oil revenues Iraq is being allowed to keep are almost certainly being spend on American weapons, mercenaries, and Wall Street investments. "

And the Islamists are ever grateful. What you're talking about doesn't remotely contradict the fact that Islamists are the evil empire's great allies.

"The devshirme was an Ottoman system"

I'm not talking about devshirme. I'm talking about the annual quota of slaves the Umayyads imposed on the Berbers, among others, which led to the Berber revolt.

"4) After the Muslims conquered the Levant and Persia, there were no more wars Levantines were expected to fight against Persians"

ROFL. Well yes, that's because the Muslims conquered Persia and laid waste to its civilization. I'm sure you'll rationalize the utter annihilation of one of the greatest and civilized empires in history from the history books thanks to the Muslim "liberators".

As for the 'benign' Islamic slave trade. 2/3 of the slaves were women, most forced in slavery for sex. Male slaves were castrated, because after all the Muslims couldn't trust them to behave. I seem to remember someone telling me that slavery in the plantations wasn't that bad because slaves could own property. Oh wait, that was you. I guess you're always defending slavery. Funny, Lenin's quote about liberal preaching about "freedom" being the "freedom to own slaves" never was more true when it comes to you.

Well in history circles Will Durant is seen as a fraud. Try to bring Will Durant and his wife's books up in a university setting. I did as a sophomore in undergrad and learned from it.

I find all sides of this argument ridiculous. First, yes Islamic civilizations could be oppressive. I don't know why we are focusing on the Levant when the most oppressive Islamic civilizations often were on the other side of the Mediterranean. On the other hand other Muslim civilizations were among the most inclusive of their time.

Did this destruction and persecution of Hindus and Buddhists take place in India - yes or no?

What happened to Debal? Brahminabad? Mathura? Varanasi? Ujjain? Maheshwar? Jwalamukhi? Dwarka? Somnath? What happened to the Nalanda library? What did Firuz Shah do to the village of Gohana and Hindus generally? What did Akhbar do to the Rajputs in 1568? What of Shah Jahan's 40 some campaigns against non-Muslims?

Did they take place or is all of this lie.

\