Robin Fox2 said:Oh sure, because Qatar in the 12th century was basically the birthplace of the Church itself...
I’ve studied actual history—the kind available to anyone in 2015 through a mountain of primary sources, not some cherry-picked version. Yes, the Crusaders looted Byzantium during one of their campaigns. They even looted Zadar, so what? How does that change the fact that Byzantium called upon the West for help against the Turks, or that the primary objective of the Crusader Wars was to return the Levant to Christian hands? That was the fundamental goal of all those wars: reclaiming lost territories. That’s just basic history. No one is claiming the Crusaders came specifically to conquer land on behalf of Byzantium. Are you actually surprised that Byzantium reached out to the West? It’s hardly shocking; they called for help several times, though by then it was mostly too little, too late... even one of our own kings suffered a defeat trying to assist Byzantium against the Turks. Why did you jump straight to the Fourth Crusade? Besides, I see you finally agreed that those weren't originally Arab lands, so we’re making progress... we’ve admitted someone else conquered them from someone else, which is a start 😁
The Congo isn't a Belgian Sin; the Congo was the direct sin of a Belgian king who held absolute power and total control over it. Under his reign, the Congo faced a catastrophe, and when the truth came out, it caused a scandal that forced Parliament to take over, at which point the Congo officially became a colony. Do you see the distinction?
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the American War on Terror, so where did you even get that idea? And how could Christianity be blamed for what happened to Native Americans? By what logic 🤣 everyone knows exactly who colonized North America first...
And who says it isn't a part of it? It's simply unimportant when compared to the New Testament. The New Testament established the core of Christianity; that is what defines the religion...
The primary goal of the First Crusade wasn't actually responding to Byzantium's plea, but rather conquering Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Here's a source for that info from 2015.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
Even Hitler's main excuse for invading Czechoslovakia early on was "helping" oppressed Germans in the Sudetenland, but we all know what his real objective was. Just draw a parallel: Europe wouldn't have mobilized 100,000 soldiers just to provide free aid to Byzantium; there had to be much more tangible goals involved.
Some lands were already Arab before the Crusaders arrived, and others weren't. Either way, we're getting bogged down in the weeds here, and if we dive into those specifics, we might need a whole separate thread... 😁
It's nice that you're interested in history... 🙂
The people in the Congo didn't really care whether they were being crushed by a King or a Parliament; responsibility still lies with Belgium, one way or another, whether through the head of state or the legislature.
And how did we end up talking about the war on terror? This whole mess started with Charlie Hebdo—it's a whole saga involving fundamentalism, Islam, Christianity, and so on. The entire subject is incredibly complex, even if we all agree on condemning what happened in France.