re: The most 'just' and 'moral' war in all of history

quote:

---

Of course it wasn’t, I’m referring to the culture and religion that is at the heart of the two.

---

If I rule a piece of territory peacefully for 800 years, and the new rulers (Europeans) cause nothing but havoc and strife after I leave, could that imply that the problem is them or me?

(no message)

quote:

---

What were the muslims doing in their land?

---

The muslims conquered the Byzantines who inherited it from the Romans, who conquered it from the Maccabees, who conquered it from the Selucids, who conquered it from the Persians...

quote:

---

How did they get there and by what means did they establish authority, did they kill anyone who would resist and the ones left "lived in peace with them"?

---

You probably didnt know this, but the Ottomans let the Greek Orthodox have a certain freedom of religion, assuming they paid a tax. During the 1453 siege of Constantinople, there were a sizable number of Christians among them, partly because they preferred Ottoman rule to Byzantine rule.

To answer your question the Turks claimed Jerusalem from the Roman Catholic Crusaders in the 12th century, to rule it almost continuously up into the 20th century.

They got their authority by defending their land and ruling it, and not by commiting genocide on every christian they ran across.

quote:

---

I think this deserves some explanation.

Why was it just or moral?

---

The Crusades were launched in response to Muslim aggressions. The Muslims had taken historic Christian lands, closed the pilgrim trails, and were actively persecuting Christians. They were forcing conversions of indigenous Christian peoples, and killing or harassing those that would not convert.

Further the Muslim invasions were spreading into Europe and endangering all of Christendom.

The Crusades were an answer to a plea from the Christian peoples of the areas being invaded as well as the Byzantines who had the Seljuks knocking on their doors.

Lastly the Crusades did not seek to claim new lands or impress upon Muslim held lands. They were supposed to open the pilgrim trails, relieve the oppressed Christians, and free the indigenous peoples from the rule of the Caliphates.

All that said, not all the Crusaders behaved justly, and many atrocities were committed by the Crusaders, but that is a separate issue from whether the Christians were just in going to war.

quote:

---

Hey look, we’re finally on the same page

---

I’ve upvoted everything you’ve said in here. I agree with 99.9% of what you put on this site, your thoughts on JP are, however, retarded but that’s for a different thread...one that I’ll probably start

quote:

---

NYNolaguy1

---

Jihad vs Crusades

Those loveable Moslems.

Yep. Definitely crusades. Had those brave crusaders not beat back the Muslims, then all of Europe would've probably become Islamic.

At that point, my ancestors wouldn't have even had the chance to leave England in the 1740s. They would've been stoned to death before getting to the boat. Muslims are more aware of non muslims that Catholics are of non Catholics.

This might rattle some cages, but I’ll posit the Seven Day War as just and moral.

Attacked on 3 sides by countries intent on driving you into the sea, but you rally quickly and administer an epic arse whipping. You take some border lands as a buffer, but refrain from full scale retaliation.

quote:

---

Granted it was late in the empire but they did try to kill all the Armenians in 1915.

---

Thats true. Even to this day its a political issue in Turkey.