Historians Weigh in on Obama's Comparison of ISIS Militants to Medieval Christian Crusaders

[wildchild]

This Obama needs to go back to school and learn history. This clown makes these kinds of gaffs all the time.

https://gma.yahoo.com/historians-we...s-militants-medieval-christian-233947247.html


After President Obama’s remarks comparing ISIS militants to medieval Christian crusaders ignited a firestorm of criticism on Thursday, ABC News wanted to know: how accurate is that comparison?

“Lest 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,” the president told an audience at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday.

Meanwhile, historians have been quick to discourage a link between ISIS and the Crusaders, who fought to reclaim holy lands in the Middle East nearly 900 years ago.

“I don’t think the president knows very much about the crusades,” Thomas Madden, a historian at the University of St. Louis, told ABC News.

“He seems to be casting them as an example of a distortion of Christianity and trying to compare that to what he sees as a distortion of Islam in the actions of ISIS,” Madden said. “The initial goal of the Crusades was to give back lands to Christians that been conquered, due to Muslim conquests.”

 

[gwb-trading]

This Obama needs to go back to school and learn history. This clown makes these kinds of gaffs all the time.

https://gma.yahoo.com/historians-we...s-militants-medieval-christian-233947247.html


After President Obama’s remarks comparing ISIS militants to medieval Christian crusaders ignited a firestorm of criticism on Thursday, ABC News wanted to know: how accurate is that comparison?

“Lest 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,” the president told an audience at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday.

Meanwhile, historians have been quick to discourage a link between ISIS and the Crusaders, who fought to reclaim holy lands in the Middle East nearly 900 years ago.

“I don’t think the president knows very much about the crusades,” Thomas Madden, a historian at the University of St. Louis, told ABC News.

“He seems to be casting them as an example of a distortion of Christianity and trying to compare that to what he sees as a distortion of Islam in the actions of ISIS,” Madden said. “The initial goal of the Crusades was to give back lands to Christians that been conquered, due to Muslim conquests.”

Exactly. To provide some context - the Crusades were started due to the continual attacks by Muslims on Christians from 1025 to 1095. The Crusades began in 1095, when armies of Christians from Western Europe responded to Pope Urban II’s plea to go to war against Muslim forces in the Holy Land. This call was driven by the continued Muslim attacks on the Christian Byzantine Empire centered on Constantinople of which Battle of Manzikert in 1071 was a decisive defeat of the Byzantine army including the capture of Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes by the Muslim Turks.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Why does the President of the United States feel a need to excuse muslim terrorism?

You will notice the media have totally dropped this topic of his offensive remarks. They were barely reported the day after.

I guess hypothetical questions about vaccination policy was more newsworthy.

 

[Ricter]

"I would not wish to defend the behavior of the Crusaders, which was in many respects atrocious. But let us have a little sense of proportion. We are now expected to believe that the Crusades were an unwarranted act of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. Hardly. The first papal call for a crusade occurred in 846 C.E., when an Arab expedition from Sicily sailed up the Tiber and sacked St. Peter’s in Rome."

I would not wish to defend the behavior of ISIS, which is in many respects atrocious. But let us have a little sense of proportion. We are now expected to believe that the emergence of ISIS is an inexplicable act of aggression against a peaceful Western presence. Hardly.

 

[dbphoenix]

One might also investigate why the Muslims sacked St. Peter's.

 

[wildchild]

We are now expected to believe that the emergence of ISIS is an inexplicable act of aggression against a peaceful Western presence. Hardly.

ISIS is going around slaughtering any people who belong to a religious minority they can get their hands on. If you belong to the wrong sect of Islam they will slaughter you. If you are Jordanian and belong to the same sect as them, they will light you on fire. If you are Japanese they will decapitate you. The overwhelming majority of those slaughtered are people who live in the area and have always lived in the area.

Why do leftist always excuse the behavior and try to rationalize it based on flawed logic? The majority of leftist think this kind of stuff is happening because of Gitmo.

 

[dbphoenix]

ISIS is going around slaughtering any people who belong to a religious minority they can get their hands on. If you belong to the wrong sect of Islam they will slaughter you. If you are Jordanian and belong to the same sect as them, they will light you on fire. If you are Japanese they will decapitate you. The overwhelming majority of those slaughtered are people who live in the area and have always lived in the area.

Why do leftist always excuse the behavior and try to rationalize it based on flawed logic? The majority of leftist think this kind of stuff is happening because of Gitmo.

And why do rightists always rationalize their attitudes in order to justify them? Are you incapable of objective inquiry?

 

[Ricter]

ISIS is going around slaughtering any people who belong to a religious minority they can get their hands on. If you belong to the wrong sect of Islam they will slaughter you. If you are Jordanian and belong to the same sect as them, they will light you on fire. If you are Japanese they will decapitate you. The overwhelming majority of those slaughtered are people who live in the area and have always lived in the area.

Why do leftist always excuse the behavior and try to rationalize it based on flawed logic? The majority of leftist think this kind of stuff is happening because of Gitmo.

Let's look at the problem from a different perspective...

What are the odds ISIS would have been freely operating in more than half of Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

Why do rightists always caricaturize complex problems with the flawed thinking of leaving out important (if inconvenient) considerations?

 

[gwb-trading]

One might also investigate why the Muslims sacked St. Peter's.

Because they are violent barbarians intent on taking over the civilized world and enforcing their 8th century standards on us.

 

[wildchild]

Let's look at the problem from a different perspective...

What are the odds ISIS would have been freely operating in more than half of Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

Why do rightists always caricaturize complex problems with the flawed thinking of leaving out important (if inconvenient) considerations?

Why look at it from the other perspective? You implied the actions of ISIS were occurring because of actions made by the west. Why would they be killing a bunch of middle easterners and japanese then? You made the claim, own up to it pal.

Second, even if we consider your perspective, the fact is ISIS started in Syria which the west had NOTHING to do with.