The crusades were started by Selijuk Turks killing 3000 Byzantine Christiansin 1078, and then slaughtering and humilating Christian pilgrims from 1070-1099.
feel the wrath of the franks, the conquering lion will destroy the mountains of zion it has been forseen by a navajo shaman. so prepare for the worst!
@zambonimansam You seem to be a serious idiot. Just have to take a look at the scripts (written by western authors of the time). Even they talk about slaughter on a scale never seen before.
Were you there in 1099? Don't think so. At least do yourself a favour and read a bit to overcome your awfull ignorance.
Knowing what we know about Islam today why would anyone think it was any different back then. Ever since Muhammad the goal has alway been an Islamic world-wide caliphate. That is the entire reason we were attacked in 9/11--although you would never know that from the media or govt officials. If the Christians did nothing, they would have been eventually overrun my the Muhammadans. "Maybe" some mistakes were made here and there, but those "mistakes" were not the reason for the crusades.
Truly the crusades were among the most rightous, noble and brave things ever done in humanity! Noone is able to raise ONE SINGLE argument against them! All your propaganda won't help!
someone says the first crusader-king was from england,but it was king Sigurd jorsalfare from norway,and king Olav harraldson was the first holy king in christendom.†
People seem to ignor how the Turk mongols slaugheterd the army of Peter the Hermit and at the same time began colonizing Asia Minor. Even today three million Turks are eating off Germany, they illegally occupy Asia Minor, eastern Thrace, North Cyprus and Antioch.
Raymond of Aguilers , an eyewitness of the event "the pagans were mercifully beheaded, others pierced by arrows plunged from towers, and yet others, tortured for a long time, were burned to death in searing flames"
William of Tyre described the victorious Crusaders 'dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which bought terror to all who met them'
When they finished murdering thousands of innocent people the Crusaders gathered at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to give thanks.
Gesta Francorum " christian knight were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles"
the so called Christian killing every single living being @ that city
@TheLoyalOfficer lol , well the video title : The First Crusade: The Slaughter of Jerusalem, not The First Muslim crusade, i just bring facts about the first crusade in the name of christ :D :D :D
@sakeranz Yes but the implication of this video is that the Muslims never did anything bad, and they were just poor, innocent victims of the eeeeevil Crusaders. Nonsense.
And they did not "kill every living being..." Those reports are exaggerations.
@TheLoyalOfficer ok, this video hurt you so much, so you need to change the subject......, yes sometimes truth hurt so people need to point at others to make them a bit good LOL
@sakeranz That's not where I'm coming from here. This video presents a very biased, anti-Western, one-sided view of the situation. It's not that the sack of Jerusalem did not happen. It's that there is more to the story than just that one battle.
Remember two facts which are undeniable: (1) Islam never converted any land except through violence; and (2) two-thirds of the Christian world had been conquered-- by the sword-- before the first Crusade even began. The lies about "knee- deep blood" (physically impossible) must end.
Not one person was "slaughtered" when Jerusalem was taken back by the Christian Crusaders. This BBC film is a lie; totally false. Although Muslims slaughtered, and by the standards of war at the time, slaughter was expected, the mercy the Crusaders displayed at Jerusalem was incredible.
@zambonimansam No, the Crusaders did kill a large number of civilians in Jerusalem, you cant really argue with that. The Muslims slaughtered Christians and the Christians slaughtered Muslims, there is no use in trying to rewrite history.
The reason the muslims were slaughtered in al aqsa was not because of Tankred, but because of the peaseants, he did not know this happened until it was done.
@kig132 Why don't you take a look at your own slaughters first? Such as the Sack of Rome in 843? Or the obliteration of the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch? Or the invasion and occupation of 50% of Christendom?
Let's see some documentaries about ISLAMIC atrocities in this period. Just covering 640-1090 AD would take HOURS of film to expose.
Stop bitching about the Crusades. The "religion of peace" had it coming.
@TheLoyalOfficer first off, the sack of rome was done by the vandals, a german tribe, secondly the Muslims did not massacre civilians during their conquests on the scale of the crusades
@indofatso Wow - nice try. This PROVES the PC nonsense of our educational system! LOOK IT UP - the "religion of peace" SACKED ROME and destroyed the Vatican and the Tombs of the Apostles in 843. So you are wrong right there. I bet you are going to say "it was not that bad" then, huh? What a joke!
The Muslims did not massacre civilians? Did you check the sack of Antioch around 1300? How about the destruction of the Patriarchates?
@kig132 stop whining, nobody was a saint back then, a thief has little moral of complain when he is robbed. what do you think happened when the muslims conquered a city? both were like that so neither can complain without being a hipocrate!!!
@TheLoyalOfficer are you stupid? saladin was not a arab nor a stupid moron like you he was a man of honour. he allowed al to pray there becuse its the ways of islam to respekt other religion even if they are not same as them.. fuck you islamofibia jävel
@hellojulie Not really. The Normans were not French. They were Vikings. William the Conqueror was the grandson of Rollo, a Viking warlord who was granted Normandy by the Capetian French kings (who only ruled in Paris) as a buffer state against further Viking attacks. The king of "France" at that time, was feeble. The Duke of Burgundy, for example, was far more powerful.
Plus, half of "France" was part of the English kingdom.
There really was no "France" as we know it now, in 1066.
i even checked your wikipedia your a LIAR , YOU SAID he enslaved the people of jerusalem
under capture of jerusalem
Ransom was to be paid for each Frank in the city whether man, woman or child. Saladin allowed many to leave without having the required amount for ransom for others
That movie is total bullcrap! Check the history - your "noble" Saladin ENSLAVED the people of Jerusalem. He threw them in chains and packed them off to Damascus. Just wiki it - it's right in there. And also confirmed by MUSLIM writers.
So your whole thing with the "noble saladin" is just a pot of lies and nonsense.
And you can ALWAYS count of Hollywood to disrepect Christianity.
@reece9886 The sources in the page are cited. But I will do your work for you - just this once - just to burst this ridiculous bubble and send you crying into your pillow.
Ibn al-Athir
Baha al-Din
Imad al-DIn
All MUSLIM historians talking about Saladin's ruthlessness and ENSLAVEMENT of over 16,000 people in Jerusalem. See also "Arab Historians of the Crusades."
@reece9886 16,000 ENSLAVED by the "noble" Saladin after the taking of Jerusalem. Apparently they did not make it to the back gates...
I have not lied at all - not ONCE. You are just upset that I have shattered the image of your marble man. You can cry into your pillow all that you want, it does not change the facts, which I have been showing since the beginning.
He was a man of his time - nothing more, and nothing less.
@TheLoyalOfficer listen you liar not going to believe you just because you mention it , were in wiki as YOU mentioned does it say this , anyone can add something to wiki
which book what page does it say he took POW's
an il show you references on what i say
salahuddin even his enemies testified ti his greatness
@reece9886 Scroll down, moron. I ALREADY gave you the names of the Muslims historians. Don't make me copy and paste. This has nothing to do with wiki.
@reece9886 Maybe YOU have found no evidence, but I have. Along with billions of others. But that's ok - live your fantasy about Saladin. Many other PC zombies see it the same way, tragically.
It's a sad moment when politics trumps historical truth.
@TheD He STILL enslaved civilians. Thousands of them. He also committed other misdeeds, as chronicled by Muslim historians of the day.
This marble man image is ridiculous and is yet another brick in the wall of the "Christian bad, Muslim good" bullshit paradigm of the Crusades.
How come that enslavement was not in "Kingdom of Heaven"? How come there are no documentaries of the 450 years of Muslim invasion, desecration, and enslavement of Christians that took place before the First Crusade?
I never said he was a marble man, or totally 100% good. I'm just saying Saladin was probably less of a ruthless bastard than many of the Christian knights were. Everyone in that era had to be ruthless, or you wouldn't last 10 minutes.
@TheLoyalOfficer what misdeeds so many lies, state facts with references ,
not he said she said,
what civilians did he enslave , dont say crusaders were innocent civilians ,
look how uneducated you people are , look at the area today, lebanon a third is christian as is syria , even the palestinians are christian 20 percent , what enslavement massacres had taken place by the muslims
@reece9886 Look at the history from 640 AD to 1090!!!
All of the areas taken by the "religion of peace" were CHRISTIAN lands! Thousands were killed, thousands more enslaved, hundreds of our holy places destroyed including ROME!
Millions left in dhimmi status - second-class citizens in their OWN LANDS.
Christendom struck back. Thank God they did. They were defending their civilization. Yes, people died. How many died at the hands of those who STARTED the war in the first place?
@TheLoyalOfficer ok now your saying roman empire was a peacefull empire , i think you need to check your history again, the muslims tookover the persian empire at the same time who were as bad as the romans,
besides rome is all the the way in ltaly not in the middle east how do you think they got there in the first place,
anyway a third of lebanon is still christian as syria they werent massacred they are still there
@reece9886 How did the Muslims get to Italy? Good question - they MASSACRED their way there, of course. Could you imagine if the Crusaders had sacked Mecca? You Islamist would be boo-hooing about it to this day!
And yet, has a SINGLE apology been offered by Islam for the destruction of the Vatican and the Tombs of the Apostles in 843? NO! In fact, you CELEBRATE it.
And that is the difference between Islam and Christianity. Your hypocrisy is shameful.
@TheLoyalOfficer yes but the people were still arabs and asyrians just because there religion changed and they fought back the invaders makes it bad does it
see my logic or not
imagine the red indians turned muslim and fought the invaders two hundred years ago , you would blame them aswell that its there fault
@reece9886 No - you make absolutely no sense. The Arabs in the region were CHRISTIAN, for 500 years before Mohammed. They were conquered by Muslim hordes - in part because the Sassanid Persians and Byzantine Empire had bled each other white with over 100 years of war.
And apologies for the Crusades? They HAVE been offered - many times, including by the Church! But an apology from Islam for taking HALF of our lands and killing millions of our people? NONE.
the second caliph umar ibn khattab entered jerusalem on foot holding his camel with his servant sitting on it , historians write he was wearing a single garment which had 14 patches sown in
sultan salahuddin ayubi the second to conquer jerusalem stated fill the streets with rose petals as the crusaders had filled it with blood
as i had said both times without blood shed in jerusalem
@Siberianish war is exciting until you see it god forbid experience it for yourself
think for a while when your on the recieving end seeing your loved one ripped open by swords infront of you, the terror no mercy for the elderly the young or the weaker sex
This video is retarded and intentionally leaves out so much. This is historical reconstructionist bullshit at its worst. I'm gonna go watch something more realistic... Lord of the Rings.
@reece9886 You're full of shit. The Muslims murdered 90,000 people when they first took Jerusalem. That's about half the number of what it took the Crusaders three-hundred years to do.
@TheLoyalOfficer Enslaved the population of jerusalem get your facts straight, sultan salahuddin let the crusaders leave in peace without attacking them or even molesting there women once they had surrendered
hey actually its even in movie kingdom of heaven if reading history books isnt one of your strong points
Having said that, I totally agree with you. The Islamic armies, especially those under Saladin, were more chivalrous than the Christian armies could ever hope to be. Saladin is one of the only generals to which the respect he was given he deserved.
@1878EFC2008 actually i am speaking the truth , you just wish it wasnt true
when salahudin entered jerusalem he didnt kill the inhabitants like the crusaders did
do you think it wasnt in his memory what the crusaders did or he wasnt told by his generals that he should take revenge , or even destroy the church
but remembered when umar ra the companion of muhammad pbuh entered jerusalem on foot holding his camel , he didnt kill the romans or destroy the church .that was the example he followed
@reece9886 Not much blood was spilled, just salahudin ENSLAVED thousands!
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by "the religion of peace." Plus what about the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria. DESTROYED - priests murdered, monestaries wiped out, nuns raped and enslaved.
What about ROME in 843? How about Baibar? Do you know ANY of this?
You Muslim hypocrites drone on and on and on about Jerusalem. It's really annoying. Look at your own sins before attacking us for ours.
@TheLoyalOfficer Bayber the turk you say if it werent for him you would probably speaking mongolian, the only man ever to defeat the mongolians in open battle , o yeah he defeated the crusaders aswell
he pushed back the mongol horde they would have swept through europe with a stronger force if he never
@reece9886 Yeah and baibar MURDERED thousands - including Muslims! at Antioch and elsewhere.
1066 was a conquest by the Normans, not "French". France, as a nation, really did not exist at that time. The Duke of Normandy, William, was an ancestor of Rollo, a Viking. So it was not really "France" conquering England. National identity was murky at that time.
@reece9886 That might be true, but so what? This was when the English kingdom had more pieces of France in it than England...
As for Baibar - he only destroyed a small Mongol army - a rearguard. The Great Khan had died, and the Mongols were going home for the succession struggle anyway. So, speaking Mongolian? I don't think so...
@TheLoyalOfficer no no no england had been conquered ,by outsiders to this day the british monarchy not really from britain are they, richard coudlnt even speak english
as for baybar defended damascus successfully never fell , after that they the mongols turned muslim
no one defeated the mongols in open battle except baybar , look what your saying they sent a rear gaurd to conquer damascus , when they had already conquered baghdad moscow, they were stationed few 100 miles away in baalbeck
@TheLoyalOfficer never said ghengiz khan was defeated said the mongols after he khan died , and they did go on to venice taking out all the knights templars on the way but damascus never fell
baybar was of mongol decent anyway all the turks are
@TheLoyalOfficer wouldnt have said that to his face, actually not even a crusader would have been able to say that to his face , late 1500 s the turks were taking over constantinople at that time and the rest of the byzantine empire, which what the crusades were about , didnt do a good job did they just a crusade of rape and pillage
yes he did kill muslims just like the mongols and the crusaders did and then you blame muslims for trying to defend themselves against invaders
@reece9886 How much faster would the Byzantine Empire had fallen without the Crusades? They got smoked badly by the Turks in 1071, losing territory all the way up to their "second city" - Nicea.
Invaders? ISLAM was the invader. Those territories attacked by the Crusades were Christian for over 500 years before the "religion of peace" sank their claws into them.
What a load of horse shit, this documentary is biased pointing out what ever they feel like and hiding the rest, the only thing they point out is the massacre of the moslems & jews (Which I do not disagree, it happened and they deserved it, giving what they did to the Christian population and the Holy Sepulcher a couple of decades ago).
@TheBaronofBallstein Well the ones that had done anny persecution to the Christians were actualy gone what was left was the always present multicultural population and tolerant new regime that was Egyptian Shias of Fatamits that hadnt comited anny atrocide to the Christians or Jews for that matter.
Also the even the Turks persecution wasnt comparble to what Crusaders did they burn people alive massacred anyone that they consider inferior and infidel
The crusaders were famous for their brutality: there are several accounts of crusaders' cannibalism by chistian eyewitness, as well as the indiscriminate murders of orthodox christians, jews and moslems.
@AnatolyaTurkiye LOL look whos calling the cursaders barbarians, shut the fuck up mongoloid, worse barbarians than you filthy turks dont exist. You dumb motherfucker gotta read the history of your barbarians that makes the Crusaders look a civilized example to mimmic.
@AnatolyaTurkiye Listen subhuman, I treat you as you and your filthy ancestors were and are, barbarians. Am I wrong about that? Open up a history book and learn about your ancestors before you judge the ancestors of the other barbarians. Me I do not fall into any of this category, for I am Greek and we created the word and classification "barbarian" to describe both of your ancestors. Mongols & Franks alike, the only thing that differs is that you came from Asia, they came from the Rine.
that is what you have been taught. Nobody ever committed worse crimes than catholics. They killed millions of pagans, jews, muslims, othodox christians and even their brethren catholics(Hussite Wars).
@centrino987 go on explain the so called christians abuse in jerusalem as only minor,
il remind you what actually happened , the whole city was slaughtered women were raped childrens heads were smashed against the wall the aged werent even shown mercy
@centrino987first of all, the enemies of Christendom in the first crusade were turks, not arabs. plus, i take it you didnt see the part of the documentary where crusaders impaled children to spits and ate them
Yes, you will dominate using mud-houses and sand buildings instead of our superior skyscrapers.
While we have atomic bombs, and Nukes, you have pointless books and terrorists.
This is NOT a time for Islam to dominate. It has barely ever dominated, only through ruthless slaughter, murder, assassination, and cowardice, has it managed to survive.
Please dont embarass yourself further you stupid dog.
No-one gives a damn about your religion, so go back where you came from.
its actually not, but some Muslims -that have very few knowledge of Islam- think that it is. war is forbidden in Islam unless you defend yourself from those preventing you to teach and spread Islam. The word jihad does not means holy war, like crusade, it is just mean to teach Islam to non-believers(of Islam).
This is grossly inaccurate. The Jews of Jerusalem were of no financial value to the Muslims. They were a micro-minority and were starving.
The Muslims and Christians didn't really "get along fine" with the other peoples. There was great discrimination and the Christians were always in danger of being targeted by the Muslims.
But things got bad when the Crusaders arrived. Even the Christians suffered. The Latin Crusaders tried to force Catholicism on the Greek and Coptic Christians.
so actually the christians dont nid to be save in jerusalem, the muslim nvr mistreated or kill them or force them to convert. the crusaders should hv jus come drink coffee and went home .
but thats the only reason they did it, because it was "holy" it was thousands of miles away from the major population centers in Europe in a desert, and the people that lived there at the time had been there for centuries.
Unfortunately I also believe wars wouldn't just disappear if all people abandoned religion.
WWI and WWII was about religion?? How about the wars today?
The REAL reason for wars has always been greed for money and territory. Religion was just a smoke-screan to fool people into believing they were fighting a noble war.
I didnt say anything about wars dissapearing how did u derive that? And religion isnt just a smoke screen plenty of war and suffering has happend as a direct conflict of religious views.There are many causes of war but either way you look at it eliminating that huge cause of war would be a plus.
Correct, but here's the thing. Very few christians live like they preach and follow the words of Jesus. Most christians are into that "eternal life", "believe in me" nonsense, rather than actually living their lives like Jesus wanted them to. Hence christianity is as glued-on as it comes and people use it in whatever way to fit their "righteous lives".
How many rulers didn't use the church and christianity to rally more people to their "noble wars"?
A lot of christians are as hellbent on using force and violence to impose their ludicrous values on other people as the muslims are. At least Muhammad was honest enough to admit that violence is justifiable if ones is under attack by others, so you can't really prove muslims wrong that way since they always thing they are under attack. Pretty much like a lot of christians are
If not for laws many christians would still burn people at the stake for blasphemy.Screw ALL religion
@Shrunkinskulls im assuming youve never read the Koran, you should try it some time. there is a reason it is the fastest growing religeon in the world
The crusades were started by Selijuk Turks killing 3000 Byzantine Christiansin 1078, and then slaughtering and humilating Christian pilgrims from 1070-1099.
ksj6016 1 day ago
feel the wrath of the franks, the conquering lion will destroy the mountains of zion it has been forseen by a navajo shaman. so prepare for the worst!
eyeh8zion 4 months ago
@zambonimansam You seem to be a serious idiot. Just have to take a look at the scripts (written by western authors of the time). Even they talk about slaughter on a scale never seen before.
Were you there in 1099? Don't think so. At least do yourself a favour and read a bit to overcome your awfull ignorance.
1nosferatu2 4 months ago
Imagine having a holy crusade today minus the guns and planes and tanks; all medieval style, are you going to take the call? :]
jonweisberg01 5 months ago
Knowing what we know about Islam today why would anyone think it was any different back then. Ever since Muhammad the goal has alway been an Islamic world-wide caliphate. That is the entire reason we were attacked in 9/11--although you would never know that from the media or govt officials. If the Christians did nothing, they would have been eventually overrun my the Muhammadans. "Maybe" some mistakes were made here and there, but those "mistakes" were not the reason for the crusades.
7777Ralph 6 months ago
Truly the crusades were among the most rightous, noble and brave things ever done in humanity! Noone is able to raise ONE SINGLE argument against them! All your propaganda won't help!
JohnKing789 8 months ago
someone says the first crusader-king was from england,but it was king Sigurd jorsalfare from norway,and king Olav harraldson was the first holy king in christendom.†
vif12vf 8 months ago
i think bbc and some stupid westerners trying to befriend muslims by talking against christianity, but sadly that wont help
fossilshale 9 months ago 9
@fossilshale bull-fucking-shit..bein objective isn't catering to muslims
gottspieler 6 months ago
@fossilshale bull-fucking-shit..you obviously haven't watched the entire show
gottspieler 6 months ago
People seem to ignor how the Turk mongols slaugheterd the army of Peter the Hermit and at the same time began colonizing Asia Minor. Even today three million Turks are eating off Germany, they illegally occupy Asia Minor, eastern Thrace, North Cyprus and Antioch.
MrAugustus88 9 months ago 2
Raymond of Aguilers , an eyewitness of the event "the pagans were mercifully beheaded, others pierced by arrows plunged from towers, and yet others, tortured for a long time, were burned to death in searing flames"
William of Tyre described the victorious Crusaders 'dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which bought terror to all who met them'
When they finished murdering thousands of innocent people the Crusaders gathered at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to give thanks.
sakeranz 9 months ago
fact
Gesta Francorum " christian knight were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles"
the so called Christian killing every single living being @ that city
sakeranz 9 months ago
@sakeranz Nonsense.
And can we PLEASE examine some Muslim massacres?
TheLoyalOfficer 9 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer like it or not that's the fact dude
sakeranz 9 months ago
@sakeranz And why do we obsess over this one massacre? How about some of the MUSLIM atrocities?
Or is that "racist" to bring up?
TheLoyalOfficer 9 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer lol , well the video title : The First Crusade: The Slaughter of Jerusalem, not The First Muslim crusade, i just bring facts about the first crusade in the name of christ :D :D :D
sakeranz 9 months ago
@sakeranz Yes but the implication of this video is that the Muslims never did anything bad, and they were just poor, innocent victims of the eeeeevil Crusaders. Nonsense.
And they did not "kill every living being..." Those reports are exaggerations.
TheLoyalOfficer 9 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer ok, this video hurt you so much, so you need to change the subject......, yes sometimes truth hurt so people need to point at others to make them a bit good LOL
sakeranz 9 months ago
@sakeranz That's not where I'm coming from here. This video presents a very biased, anti-Western, one-sided view of the situation. It's not that the sack of Jerusalem did not happen. It's that there is more to the story than just that one battle.
TheLoyalOfficer 9 months ago
Remember two facts which are undeniable: (1) Islam never converted any land except through violence; and (2) two-thirds of the Christian world had been conquered-- by the sword-- before the first Crusade even began. The lies about "knee- deep blood" (physically impossible) must end.
zambonimansam 9 months ago 2
Not one person was "slaughtered" when Jerusalem was taken back by the Christian Crusaders. This BBC film is a lie; totally false. Although Muslims slaughtered, and by the standards of war at the time, slaughter was expected, the mercy the Crusaders displayed at Jerusalem was incredible.
zambonimansam 9 months ago 2
@zambonimansam
Do you have any proper academic evidence to back this up?
TheGhostSmyth 3 months ago
@zambonimansam No, the Crusaders did kill a large number of civilians in Jerusalem, you cant really argue with that. The Muslims slaughtered Christians and the Christians slaughtered Muslims, there is no use in trying to rewrite history.
uafchris 1 month ago
Totally false
zambonimansam 9 months ago
The reason the muslims were slaughtered in al aqsa was not because of Tankred, but because of the peaseants, he did not know this happened until it was done.
TheGhostSmyth 9 months ago
This is complete BULLSHIT! The crusades were a response to Muslim aggression! Research it yourself if you don't believe me!
Mythik88 11 months ago
@Mythik88
Regardless,a slaughter of both Muslims and Jews was no proper response to our "aggression"
kig132 11 months ago
@kig132 Why don't you take a look at your own slaughters first? Such as the Sack of Rome in 843? Or the obliteration of the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch? Or the invasion and occupation of 50% of Christendom?
Let's see some documentaries about ISLAMIC atrocities in this period. Just covering 640-1090 AD would take HOURS of film to expose.
Stop bitching about the Crusades. The "religion of peace" had it coming.
TheLoyalOfficer 11 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer first off, the sack of rome was done by the vandals, a german tribe, secondly the Muslims did not massacre civilians during their conquests on the scale of the crusades
indofatso 10 months ago
@indofatso Wow - nice try. This PROVES the PC nonsense of our educational system! LOOK IT UP - the "religion of peace" SACKED ROME and destroyed the Vatican and the Tombs of the Apostles in 843. So you are wrong right there. I bet you are going to say "it was not that bad" then, huh? What a joke!
The Muslims did not massacre civilians? Did you check the sack of Antioch around 1300? How about the destruction of the Patriarchates?
Have you done ANY research?
Get back to me when you do.
TheLoyalOfficer 10 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer the sack of rome was not a muslim deed
indofatso 10 months ago
@indofatso In 843 AD it was. The "religion of peace" burned down the Vatican and the Tombs of the Apostles.
Look it up.
TheLoyalOfficer 10 months ago
@indofatso Actually, it was 846 - I was off by 3 years.
Nevertheless, the sack still happened. Look it up.
TheLoyalOfficer 10 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer the sack of rome did happen but it was a German deed by the Vandal tribe not muslims. Look it up
indofatso 9 months ago
@indofatso The Vandal sack was in 455.
Check 846. Get back to me when you do.
Thanks.
TheLoyalOfficer 9 months ago
@kig132 stop whining, nobody was a saint back then, a thief has little moral of complain when he is robbed. what do you think happened when the muslims conquered a city? both were like that so neither can complain without being a hipocrate!!!
boss180888 11 months ago
@boss180888
I know that Saladin held control over his men when Jerusalem was open,unlike Godfrey
Not every person as a saint,but some were closer
but your point is valid too no doubt about it
kig132 11 months ago
@kig132 For example - when Baibar and his Muslim army took Antioch, the slaughter was just as bad, if not worse, than Jerusalem.
How come THAT massacre is not mentioned AT ALL in this "documentary."
TheLoyalOfficer 11 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer
never heard of Baibar's slaughter
do you have a link or reference?
kig132 11 months ago
@kig132 Just wiki him, dude. It's all in there.
TheLoyalOfficer 11 months ago
@kig132 And worse still, the majority of the people that Baibar massacred were MUSLIMS!
TheLoyalOfficer 11 months ago
@kig132 Saladin ENSLAVED Jerusalem when he took it!
TheLoyalOfficer 11 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer are you stupid? saladin was not a arab nor a stupid moron like you he was a man of honour. he allowed al to pray there becuse its the ways of islam to respekt other religion even if they are not same as them.. fuck you islamofibia jävel
12usamas 9 months ago
@12usamas Read some history, DICKHEAD.
Your "man of honor" ENSLAVED the people of Jerusalem if they did not pay a ransom.
Kind of odd that they did not portray that in this bullshit series or that crap movie "Kingdom of Heaven", huh?
Deal with it.
TheLoyalOfficer 9 months ago
@kig132 except it didn't happen
zambonimansam 9 months ago
i dont no why the british are getting all worked up about losing jerusalem , england was ravaged by the french to fund the crusade
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886
No they weren't. You aren't a very educated child. Please do some research as currently you're just embarrassing yourself.
1878EFC2008 1 year ago
@reece9886 England was ravaged by the French? When?
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer what do you think the doomsday book was about , what did wiiliam the conquerer do after he became conquered england,
Richard coundnt even speak english while he was king for ten yrs stayed in england for 6 months if that,
lived in the south of france
reece9886 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer William the Conquerer was from Normandy
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie Yes...? And...?
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer so they got ravaged by france
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie Not really. The Normans were not French. They were Vikings. William the Conqueror was the grandson of Rollo, a Viking warlord who was granted Normandy by the Capetian French kings (who only ruled in Paris) as a buffer state against further Viking attacks. The king of "France" at that time, was feeble. The Duke of Burgundy, for example, was far more powerful.
Plus, half of "France" was part of the English kingdom.
There really was no "France" as we know it now, in 1066.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
footsoldiers who were crusaders were not civilians dumbo
reece9886 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@reece9886 I'll just start copying and pasting now, since you refuse to read my posts:
Taking people prisoner is NOT enslaving!
Your bubble is burst. The myth shattered.
ENSLAVING people is definitely against the Geneva Convention. And most of them were civilians!
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
sorry mate dont debate with liars
reece9886 1 year ago
i even checked your wikipedia your a LIAR , YOU SAID he enslaved the people of jerusalem
under capture of jerusalem
Ransom was to be paid for each Frank in the city whether man, woman or child. Saladin allowed many to leave without having the required amount for ransom for others
liar liar pants on fire
reece9886 1 year ago
islam is a religion of peace unless you attack us people like salahuddin will rise to defend us
then you call us war mongering , the audacity of it
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Kingdom of Heaven?
That movie is total bullcrap! Check the history - your "noble" Saladin ENSLAVED the people of Jerusalem. He threw them in chains and packed them off to Damascus. Just wiki it - it's right in there. And also confirmed by MUSLIM writers.
So your whole thing with the "noble saladin" is just a pot of lies and nonsense.
And you can ALWAYS count of Hollywood to disrepect Christianity.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer salahuddins enemies testify to his greatness and mercy
name the muslim writer if you are truthfull
shot yourself in the foot there
yes wiki it says much about were you get your info from, do you no anyone can write in wiki
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 The sources in the page are cited. But I will do your work for you - just this once - just to burst this ridiculous bubble and send you crying into your pillow.
Ibn al-Athir
Baha al-Din
Imad al-DIn
All MUSLIM historians talking about Saladin's ruthlessness and ENSLAVEMENT of over 16,000 people in Jerusalem. See also "Arab Historians of the Crusades."
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer see if you never lied before i would have looked into this but not gona waste my time because you already lied before
so your a liar
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Read the MUSLIM sources, homes.
I gave them to you.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer read em , they testify to the greatness of the sultan even more
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 And they also testify to the FACT that he ENSLAVED the people of Jerusalem after taking it in 1187. Saladin the SLAVER.
PWND
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer your a liar i have read some more
ok it does say the footsoldiers must pay a ransom for themselves
but when he salahuddin saw a crusader carrying his elderly mother and said he never had any money , he salahuddin paid him the soldier
and stated anyone who cant afford to pay the ransom can leave through the back gates of jerusalem
how can you disrespect such a man even his enemies at that time didnt, but they attested to his greatness
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 16,000 ENSLAVED by the "noble" Saladin after the taking of Jerusalem. Apparently they did not make it to the back gates...
I have not lied at all - not ONCE. You are just upset that I have shattered the image of your marble man. You can cry into your pillow all that you want, it does not change the facts, which I have been showing since the beginning.
He was a man of his time - nothing more, and nothing less.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer listen you liar not going to believe you just because you mention it , were in wiki as YOU mentioned does it say this , anyone can add something to wiki
which book what page does it say he took POW's
an il show you references on what i say
salahuddin even his enemies testified ti his greatness
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Scroll down, moron. I ALREADY gave you the names of the Muslims historians. Don't make me copy and paste. This has nothing to do with wiki.
Saladin the SLAVER. Deal with it.
You may cry into your pillow now.
Salami.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer you liar i have found no evidence , and for your abuse shows your character
salahuddin the liberator of jerusalem
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Maybe YOU have found no evidence, but I have. Along with billions of others. But that's ok - live your fantasy about Saladin. Many other PC zombies see it the same way, tragically.
It's a sad moment when politics trumps historical truth.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer are you telling fibs again
my view is the majority historical view of salahuddin,
which is he never put the inhabitants of jerusalem to the sword, like the sadists that did that before him
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Did I ever say that Saladin killed the inhabitants of Jerusalem? NO
He ENSLAVED them.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer thats still a lie, grow up
even if he did take 16 000 foot soldiers as POW,s thats not the civilian population of jerusalem
actually he wouldnt be going against the geneva convention in this day an age
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Taking people prisoner is NOT enslaving!
Your bubble is burst. The myth shattered.
ENSLAVING people is definitely against the Geneva Convention. And most of them were civilians!
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer you keep stating people as inhabitants of jerusalem when earlier you stated they were 16 000 footsoldiers meaning crusaders
your mixing the two, remember civilians were never harmed by salahuddin
as for taking crusaders as prisoners of war is acceptable they came to fight and they lost
what else you going to do with them kill them all like the crusaders would have done
reece9886 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer
Actually, he only enslaved some of them. If they could pay for their freedom, as the majority could, he let them go.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@TheD He STILL enslaved civilians. Thousands of them. He also committed other misdeeds, as chronicled by Muslim historians of the day.
This marble man image is ridiculous and is yet another brick in the wall of the "Christian bad, Muslim good" bullshit paradigm of the Crusades.
How come that enslavement was not in "Kingdom of Heaven"? How come there are no documentaries of the 450 years of Muslim invasion, desecration, and enslavement of Christians that took place before the First Crusade?
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer
I never said he was a marble man, or totally 100% good. I'm just saying Saladin was probably less of a ruthless bastard than many of the Christian knights were. Everyone in that era had to be ruthless, or you wouldn't last 10 minutes.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer what misdeeds so many lies, state facts with references ,
not he said she said,
what civilians did he enslave , dont say crusaders were innocent civilians ,
look how uneducated you people are , look at the area today, lebanon a third is christian as is syria , even the palestinians are christian 20 percent , what enslavement massacres had taken place by the muslims
state them with reference but no you lie
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Look at the history from 640 AD to 1090!!!
All of the areas taken by the "religion of peace" were CHRISTIAN lands! Thousands were killed, thousands more enslaved, hundreds of our holy places destroyed including ROME!
Millions left in dhimmi status - second-class citizens in their OWN LANDS.
Christendom struck back. Thank God they did. They were defending their civilization. Yes, people died. How many died at the hands of those who STARTED the war in the first place?
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer ok now your saying roman empire was a peacefull empire , i think you need to check your history again, the muslims tookover the persian empire at the same time who were as bad as the romans,
besides rome is all the the way in ltaly not in the middle east how do you think they got there in the first place,
anyway a third of lebanon is still christian as syria they werent massacred they are still there
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 How did the Muslims get to Italy? Good question - they MASSACRED their way there, of course. Could you imagine if the Crusaders had sacked Mecca? You Islamist would be boo-hooing about it to this day!
And yet, has a SINGLE apology been offered by Islam for the destruction of the Vatican and the Tombs of the Apostles in 843? NO! In fact, you CELEBRATE it.
And that is the difference between Islam and Christianity. Your hypocrisy is shameful.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer how did the italians(romans) get to muslim arab lands ?good question - they massacred their way there ,
yet not a single apology when we fight back ahh terrorist
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Haha - the Romans got there HUNDREDS of years before your Mohammed even walked out of his cave. And they were PAGAN, not Christian.
So you really have no clue, do you?
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer yes but the people were still arabs and asyrians just because there religion changed and they fought back the invaders makes it bad does it
see my logic or not
imagine the red indians turned muslim and fought the invaders two hundred years ago , you would blame them aswell that its there fault
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 No - you make absolutely no sense. The Arabs in the region were CHRISTIAN, for 500 years before Mohammed. They were conquered by Muslim hordes - in part because the Sassanid Persians and Byzantine Empire had bled each other white with over 100 years of war.
And apologies for the Crusades? They HAVE been offered - many times, including by the Church! But an apology from Islam for taking HALF of our lands and killing millions of our people? NONE.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer Nice layout of the facts, well said sir.
ToreDL87 1 year ago
the second caliph umar ibn khattab entered jerusalem on foot holding his camel with his servant sitting on it , historians write he was wearing a single garment which had 14 patches sown in
sultan salahuddin ayubi the second to conquer jerusalem stated fill the streets with rose petals as the crusaders had filled it with blood
as i had said both times without blood shed in jerusalem
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886
Sure, that's cool. However - killing everybody is way more badass.
Siberianish 1 year ago
@Siberianish war is exciting until you see it god forbid experience it for yourself
think for a while when your on the recieving end seeing your loved one ripped open by swords infront of you, the terror no mercy for the elderly the young or the weaker sex
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886
Well - It's still more badass. In practical terms sword-ripping is always a safe bet.
Siberianish 1 year ago
This video is retarded and intentionally leaves out so much. This is historical reconstructionist bullshit at its worst. I'm gonna go watch something more realistic... Lord of the Rings.
MonaghanMan3000 1 year ago
we muslims conquered jerusalem twice both times entering the city without shedding any of the blood of the inhabitants
ahh what an example left in history
and on the contrary
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 You're full of shit. The Muslims murdered 90,000 people when they first took Jerusalem. That's about half the number of what it took the Crusaders three-hundred years to do.
MonaghanMan3000 1 year ago
@reece9886 "we"? u didn't do anything...you haven't even been to Jerusalem once.
MrBuster128 1 year ago
@MrBuster128 i swear by on the lord in heaven , i have just returned from occupied palestine, 2 weeks ago
which you would not have known obviously hence your comment
sultan salahuddin ayubi ra fought for the whole muslim nation hence "WE"
ironically he also liberated the holy lands for the jews aswell not even a single christian church holy site was molested in anyway
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Yeah, you only ENSLAVED the population of Jerusalem...
No shedding of blood? Religion of peace?
Please.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer Enslaved the population of jerusalem get your facts straight, sultan salahuddin let the crusaders leave in peace without attacking them or even molesting there women once they had surrendered
hey actually its even in movie kingdom of heaven if reading history books isnt one of your strong points
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886
You do know this kind of nationalism that you're displaying in your post is the exact reason why wars are fought.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@TheDarkFrontier nationalism it may seem but stating historical facts
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886
Having said that, I totally agree with you. The Islamic armies, especially those under Saladin, were more chivalrous than the Christian armies could ever hope to be. Saladin is one of the only generals to which the respect he was given he deserved.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@reece9886
You 'conquered' without sheddign blood? I can't even imagine how much you have to contort logic and common sense for that to make sense in your head.
1878EFC2008 1 year ago
@1878EFC2008 read the full sentence entering the city jerusalem without shedding any blood , im just stating a historical fact
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886
Except, you aren't.
1878EFC2008 1 year ago
@1878EFC2008 actually i am speaking the truth , you just wish it wasnt true
when salahudin entered jerusalem he didnt kill the inhabitants like the crusaders did
do you think it wasnt in his memory what the crusaders did or he wasnt told by his generals that he should take revenge , or even destroy the church
but remembered when umar ra the companion of muhammad pbuh entered jerusalem on foot holding his camel , he didnt kill the romans or destroy the church .that was the example he followed
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886
Do you believe everything you're told, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support what you've just asserted.
You're an intellectual midget.
1878EFC2008 1 year ago
@1878EFC2008 Richard would have sold london if he could have found a buyer, sold all the properties castles and mansions , not to mentions the taxes
look the man didint even live in england
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Not much blood was spilled, just salahudin ENSLAVED thousands!
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by "the religion of peace." Plus what about the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria. DESTROYED - priests murdered, monestaries wiped out, nuns raped and enslaved.
What about ROME in 843? How about Baibar? Do you know ANY of this?
You Muslim hypocrites drone on and on and on about Jerusalem. It's really annoying. Look at your own sins before attacking us for ours.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer Bayber the turk you say if it werent for him you would probably speaking mongolian, the only man ever to defeat the mongolians in open battle , o yeah he defeated the crusaders aswell
he pushed back the mongol horde they would have swept through europe with a stronger force if he never
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 Yeah and baibar MURDERED thousands - including Muslims! at Antioch and elsewhere.
1066 was a conquest by the Normans, not "French". France, as a nation, really did not exist at that time. The Duke of Normandy, William, was an ancestor of Rollo, a Viking. So it was not really "France" conquering England. National identity was murky at that time.
And the Crusades had nothing to do with that.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer and richard lived in south of france , sold most of the properties in england for funds,
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 That might be true, but so what? This was when the English kingdom had more pieces of France in it than England...
As for Baibar - he only destroyed a small Mongol army - a rearguard. The Great Khan had died, and the Mongols were going home for the succession struggle anyway. So, speaking Mongolian? I don't think so...
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer no no no england had been conquered ,by outsiders to this day the british monarchy not really from britain are they, richard coudlnt even speak english
as for baybar defended damascus successfully never fell , after that they the mongols turned muslim
no one defeated the mongols in open battle except baybar , look what your saying they sent a rear gaurd to conquer damascus , when they had already conquered baghdad moscow, they were stationed few 100 miles away in baalbeck
reece9886 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer never said ghengiz khan was defeated said the mongols after he khan died , and they did go on to venice taking out all the knights templars on the way but damascus never fell
baybar was of mongol decent anyway all the turks are
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 The Mongols made it to Venice? What?
Baibar was a PIG. He murdered thousands of people - including Muslims! He's burning in hell right now, I assure you.
The Mongols were defeated in open battle in the late 1500s by the Russians.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago 2
@TheLoyalOfficer wouldnt have said that to his face, actually not even a crusader would have been able to say that to his face , late 1500 s the turks were taking over constantinople at that time and the rest of the byzantine empire, which what the crusades were about , didnt do a good job did they just a crusade of rape and pillage
yes he did kill muslims just like the mongols and the crusaders did and then you blame muslims for trying to defend themselves against invaders
reece9886 1 year ago
@reece9886 How much faster would the Byzantine Empire had fallen without the Crusades? They got smoked badly by the Turks in 1071, losing territory all the way up to their "second city" - Nicea.
Invaders? ISLAM was the invader. Those territories attacked by the Crusades were Christian for over 500 years before the "religion of peace" sank their claws into them.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago 2
for masjid al aqsa !!!
i say that , my ancestors say that and we will continue saying that until we recapture jerusalem
reece9886 1 year ago
For the Church of the Holy Sepulchre!!!!!
Naa I kid, my ancestors said that, im more like
For more chicken wings at KFC!!!!!!!
AzunaiSmyth 1 year ago
What a load of horse shit, this documentary is biased pointing out what ever they feel like and hiding the rest, the only thing they point out is the massacre of the moslems & jews (Which I do not disagree, it happened and they deserved it, giving what they did to the Christian population and the Holy Sepulcher a couple of decades ago).
TheBaronofBallstein 1 year ago
@TheBaronofBallstein Well the ones that had done anny persecution to the Christians were actualy gone what was left was the always present multicultural population and tolerant new regime that was Egyptian Shias of Fatamits that hadnt comited anny atrocide to the Christians or Jews for that matter.
Also the even the Turks persecution wasnt comparble to what Crusaders did they burn people alive massacred anyone that they consider inferior and infidel
ImperialGuard9001 1 year ago
@TheBaronofBallstein Spot on!
MonaghanMan3000 1 year ago
The crusaders were famous for their brutality: there are several accounts of crusaders' cannibalism by chistian eyewitness, as well as the indiscriminate murders of orthodox christians, jews and moslems.
Christian compassion indeed.
whatsinthatbox 1 year ago
@whatsinthatbox bahaha fuck off with that, boy look at modern society and what islam has done to the world, fuck off with that weak shit :D
AzunaiSmyth 1 year ago
I'll make it very simple for those of you still living in the 7th century.
Muslim's took Jeruselem and triggered the Crusades, all of them.
END OF STORY, AND SOON THE END OF iSLAM.
Conan568 1 year ago
This is why we call you barbarians
your history is filthy and corrupt
AnatolyaTurkiye 1 year ago
@AnatolyaTurkiye LOL look whos calling the cursaders barbarians, shut the fuck up mongoloid, worse barbarians than you filthy turks dont exist. You dumb motherfucker gotta read the history of your barbarians that makes the Crusaders look a civilized example to mimmic.
TheBaronofBallstein 1 year ago
@TheBaronofBallstein very unbarbaric response you prove my point wrong
AnatolyaTurkiye 1 year ago
@AnatolyaTurkiye Listen subhuman, I treat you as you and your filthy ancestors were and are, barbarians. Am I wrong about that? Open up a history book and learn about your ancestors before you judge the ancestors of the other barbarians. Me I do not fall into any of this category, for I am Greek and we created the word and classification "barbarian" to describe both of your ancestors. Mongols & Franks alike, the only thing that differs is that you came from Asia, they came from the Rine.
TheBaronofBallstein 1 year ago
are you for real??
SteveSpicerPortsmuth 2 years ago
what a load of rubbish !! arab muslim armies have committed worst crimes than this
centrino987 2 years ago 4
that is what you have been taught. Nobody ever committed worse crimes than catholics. They killed millions of pagans, jews, muslims, othodox christians and even their brethren catholics(Hussite Wars).
maerd2003 2 years ago
@maerd2003 True.
MRDINIRO 1 year ago
@centrino987 go on explain the so called christians abuse in jerusalem as only minor,
il remind you what actually happened , the whole city was slaughtered women were raped childrens heads were smashed against the wall the aged werent even shown mercy
reece9886 1 year ago
@centrino987first of all, the enemies of Christendom in the first crusade were turks, not arabs. plus, i take it you didnt see the part of the documentary where crusaders impaled children to spits and ate them
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie Again, probably bullshit. The video on here is not a "documentary." It is leftist self-hating propaganda at its worst.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago 2
metrocoolali:
Yes, you will dominate using mud-houses and sand buildings instead of our superior skyscrapers.
While we have atomic bombs, and Nukes, you have pointless books and terrorists.
This is NOT a time for Islam to dominate. It has barely ever dominated, only through ruthless slaughter, murder, assassination, and cowardice, has it managed to survive.
Please dont embarass yourself further you stupid dog.
No-one gives a damn about your religion, so go back where you came from.
WolfytheWolf5667 2 years ago
very interesting story about the man granted the right to open the doors as descendant of bestowed with this privilege family
sacsayhuaman1 2 years ago
Exceptionally stupid comments, the few last
sacsayhuaman1 2 years ago
Zionists finance and produce such films.
Alexiytag 2 years ago
Sure whatever you say.
Muslim's lie.
It's condoned in the Koran, a book authored by Satan himself and revealed by Jinn or Demon's to his literate baby buggering prophet Mohammad.
Muslim's are cursed by God and chosen by Satan.
It goes right back to Abraham's bastard son Ismail.
Conan568 2 years ago
Don't forget about the insidious Talmud, and the synogogue of Satan!
DeusExPlexus 2 years ago
@Conan568 You are in error.
MRDINIRO 1 year ago
nooooob
CHUCKNORRISOWNSNOOBS 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ALLAh hu akber
ISLAM WILL DOMINATE AGAIN
INSHALLAH
metrocoolali 2 years ago
Is it really the intent of Islam to "dominate"?
charr05 2 years ago
its actually not, but some Muslims -that have very few knowledge of Islam- think that it is. war is forbidden in Islam unless you defend yourself from those preventing you to teach and spread Islam. The word jihad does not means holy war, like crusade, it is just mean to teach Islam to non-believers(of Islam).
maerd2003 2 years ago
What B___Shit! Oh the musical score is fun!
uuubeut 2 years ago
This is grossly inaccurate. The Jews of Jerusalem were of no financial value to the Muslims. They were a micro-minority and were starving.
The Muslims and Christians didn't really "get along fine" with the other peoples. There was great discrimination and the Christians were always in danger of being targeted by the Muslims.
But things got bad when the Crusaders arrived. Even the Christians suffered. The Latin Crusaders tried to force Catholicism on the Greek and Coptic Christians.
MondoBeno 3 years ago 2
@MondoBeno You are in error.
MRDINIRO 1 year ago
so actually the christians dont nid to be save in jerusalem, the muslim nvr mistreated or kill them or force them to convert. the crusaders should hv jus come drink coffee and went home .
erulerul 3 years ago
Dhimmitude is not really a safe situation in muslim countries.
Webcrusader007 2 years ago 2
I dont even understand your argument here. are you agreeing with me or what?
Asalent 3 years ago
but thats the only reason they did it, because it was "holy" it was thousands of miles away from the major population centers in Europe in a desert, and the people that lived there at the time had been there for centuries.
wakeangel2001 3 years ago
All religiions have promoted shit like that dude pick up a history book.
Asalent 3 years ago
Fucking rediculous waste of human life fucking religion is a plague to mankind FUCK IT!
Asalent 3 years ago
I agree.
Unfortunately I also believe wars wouldn't just disappear if all people abandoned religion.
WWI and WWII was about religion?? How about the wars today?
The REAL reason for wars has always been greed for money and territory. Religion was just a smoke-screan to fool people into believing they were fighting a noble war.
SteveSpicerPortsmuth 2 years ago 6
I didnt say anything about wars dissapearing how did u derive that? And religion isnt just a smoke screen plenty of war and suffering has happend as a direct conflict of religious views.There are many causes of war but either way you look at it eliminating that huge cause of war would be a plus.
Asalent 2 years ago
@SteveSpicerPortsmuth Tricking people in to fighting wars for you is ten times worse than fighting it yourself.
KaiserReich98 1 year ago
@SteveSpicerPortsmuth
True, but Jesus never used religion as a tool for conquest.
Muhammad literally wrote the book on it.
Shrunkinskulls 1 year ago
@Shrunkinskulls
Correct, but here's the thing. Very few christians live like they preach and follow the words of Jesus. Most christians are into that "eternal life", "believe in me" nonsense, rather than actually living their lives like Jesus wanted them to. Hence christianity is as glued-on as it comes and people use it in whatever way to fit their "righteous lives".
How many rulers didn't use the church and christianity to rally more people to their "noble wars"?
SteveSpicerPortsmuth 11 months ago
@Shrunkinskulls
A lot of christians are as hellbent on using force and violence to impose their ludicrous values on other people as the muslims are. At least Muhammad was honest enough to admit that violence is justifiable if ones is under attack by others, so you can't really prove muslims wrong that way since they always thing they are under attack. Pretty much like a lot of christians are
If not for laws many christians would still burn people at the stake for blasphemy.Screw ALL religion
SteveSpicerPortsmuth 11 months ago
@Shrunkinskulls im assuming youve never read the Koran, you should try it some time. there is a reason it is the fastest growing religeon in the world
indofatso 10 months ago
Listen carefully to the narrative. The crusaders do not march they "slog". They were so late, the battle was already over when they arrived.
In this multicultural heaven, the Christians had built a wall around their quarter.
What a bunch of anti christian anti western self hating BBC garbage.
To think that an entire nation of people eat this propaganda with their breakfast cereal makes me want to throw up.
Shrunkinskulls 1 year ago